dvd-discuss.archive.0011100640 764 764 3451513 7211426772 15342 0ustar wseltzerwseltzerFrom dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 02:19:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA24156 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 02:19:21 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA24153 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 02:19:19 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:08:16 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:54:44 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:54:44 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici Message-ID: <20001101085444.A8873@lemuria.org> References: <4.2.2.20001030102715.017fd120@seltzer.com> <39FE08AA.9B99B81D@mediaone.net> <20001030222134.A30200@eldritchpress.org> <4.1.20001031074553.01df59d0@law.harvard.edu> <39FED436.3F6CE39D@mediaone.net> <39FEE237.2470370F@travel-net.com> <39FF5978.5C4C3BD@mediaone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <39FF5978.5C4C3BD@mediaone.net>; from sphere1952@mediaone.net on Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 06:44:56PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sphere wrote: > BTW -- Who on this list is known to exist in the > court records? I know Jon is on the list. that in NY or any? I'm a named defendant in the CA case. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 03:48:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA24556 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 03:48:08 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA24553 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 03:48:07 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13qtaO-0005du-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:49:33 +0100 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:49:32 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: Dvd-Discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: DMCA Final Rule In-Reply-To: <000e01c04368$72535ea0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.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 Each block is encrypted separately, so any error will not propagate outside these 2048 byte blocks. Any single bitt error in the 1920 encrypted bytes of the block, will result in a single byte error of the decoded stream, any single bit error in the unencrypted first 128 bytes will result not cause additional corruption, unless it is in byte 84,85,86,87 or 88, where it will cause corruption of the entire 1920 byte encrypted chunk. frank On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, John Zulauf wrote: > (2) Could one make the claim that encrypted content is (by it's nature) less > damage tolerant and thus (to allow access after damage) must be proactively > archived to allow access after damage? > > I've understood from some of the discussion here that a single byte error in > a CSS encode stream renders the remainder illegible. Can anyone confirm or > deny this? > > john 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 Nov 1 06:27:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA25596 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 06:27:19 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA25593 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 06:27:16 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08631; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:28:43 GMT Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:28:43 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <39FF6EF8.66F6450A@mediaone.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sphere wrote: > As the enemy, we have problems with judge Kaplan's > opinion. It was against us. We think the judge > was biased in his decision. Let's list the points > where the judge demonstrated his bias and in the > process ignored both law and precident. > > I don't see any reason to do more than point out > that we are the enemy and present a litany of errors > in Kaplan's opinion. We don't even need to point > out that we consider ourselves Kaplan's enemy, > not just the plaintiff's. (Though from a purely > pissed off perspective, it would be nice to make > our opinion of Kaplan clear. We bite our thumb.) > I think it would be imprudent of us to make any hint of the fact that we might consider Kaplan as "the enemy". We would risk being labelled "immature hacker anarchists" by the real enemy - the plaintiff's legal team. The appeals judge is quite likely to take any direct attack on Kaplan as a veiled attack on the legal system as a whole, and therefore against himself/herself. Bear in mind that the appeals judge may even *know* Kaplan or at least know *of* Kaplan. ( I believe Kaplan is regarded in legal circles as quite knowlegeable and respectable. ) An attack by the likes of us on Kaplan would probably look to an appeals judge like an attack by Micro$oft on Linus Torvalds would to the slashdot community! The reaction would be 99% kneejerk, and not good for us. Leave it out. List Kaplan's perceived mistreatment(s) of us and our cause as neutrally as possible. All this IMHO of course.... -- Steve | Steve's law of House Rewiring: steve@equiinet.co.uk | "No matter how many power sockets Phone: +44 1792 540009 | you fit in a room, you will run Fax: +44 1792 295811 | out within the first week of use --------------------------------------------+ even if you took Steve's law of http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | House Rewiring into account" From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 06:44:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA25790 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 06:44:48 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA25787 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 06:44:47 -0500 Received: from banquo (adsl-151-202-34-10.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.34.10]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.9.3 (PHNE_21697)/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA03281 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 06:46:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.1.20001031220840.01e25bd0@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 06:47:19 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno transcript Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Transcripts are now online from the October 5 oral arguments in Eldred v. Reno, in the D.C. Circuit, wherein it is conceded that Congress cannot incent dead authors. Prof. Larry Lessig argued for the plaintiffs challenging the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. The judges responded with some skepticism to the government's argument that international uniformity was a strong enough interest to justify a retroactive extension of copyright. We await the decision. Arguments: or PDF Background on the case is available from and its Openlaw site. --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 Wed Nov 1 06:56:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA25963 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 06:56:29 -0500 Received: from chmls20.mediaone.net (chmls20.mediaone.net [24.147.1.156]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA25958 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 06:56:28 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls20.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA27996 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 06:57:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00053F.E008407B@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 06:57:51 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici References: <20001101045338.2578.qmail@web6405.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 Pete Broule wrote: > > --- Sphere wrote: > > As the enemy, we have problems with judge Kaplan's > > opinion. It was against us. We think the judge > > was biased in his decision. Let's list the points > > where the judge demonstrated his bias and in the > > process ignored both law and precident. > > If you mean his bias against the defendants, then, > supposedly, it's theirs to discuss. If you mean his > bias against us, then, if I understand correctly, > it has no legal significance. There isn't a rule > that a judge shouldn't be biased against any third > party, is there? > That is not my understanding of the chilling effects of restraint of speech. Almost every opinion I've read on the matter has made at least a passing reference to the effects a decision may have upon others. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 07:01:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA26068 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 07:01:09 -0500 Received: from chmls20.mediaone.net (chmls20.mediaone.net [24.147.1.156]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA26065 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 07:01:08 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls20.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA29502 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 07:02:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00065C.4740C1EE@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 07:02:36 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici References: <4.2.2.20001030102715.017fd120@seltzer.com> <39FE08AA.9B99B81D@mediaone.net> <20001030222134.A30200@eldritchpress.org> <4.1.20001031074553.01df59d0@law.harvard.edu> <39FED436.3F6CE39D@mediaone.net> <39FEE237.2470370F@travel-net.com> <39FF5978.5C4C3BD@mediaone.net> <20001101085444.A8873@lemuria.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 Tom Vogt wrote: > > Sphere wrote: > > BTW -- Who on this list is known to exist in the > > court records? I know Jon is on the list. > > that in NY or any? I'm a named defendant in the CA case. > I was thinking of the possibility of describing ourselves with somthing along the lines of "Along with others, our ranks include Jon Johanson,..." People known to the NY case have the most effect, other other names would be ok I think. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 07:12:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA26167 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 07:12:41 -0500 Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA26164 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 07:12:40 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA00721 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 07:14:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00090F.AE8F899A@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 07:14:07 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici 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 Steve Hosgood wrote: > > Sphere wrote: > > As the enemy, we have problems with judge Kaplan's > > opinion. It was against us. We think the judge > > was biased in his decision. Let's list the points > > where the judge demonstrated his bias and in the > > process ignored both law and precident. > > > > I don't see any reason to do more than point out > > that we are the enemy and present a litany of errors > > in Kaplan's opinion. We don't even need to point > > out that we consider ourselves Kaplan's enemy, > > not just the plaintiff's. (Though from a purely > > pissed off perspective, it would be nice to make > > our opinion of Kaplan clear. We bite our thumb.) > > > > I think it would be imprudent of us to make any hint of the fact that > we might consider Kaplan as "the enemy". We would risk being labelled > "immature hacker anarchists" by the real enemy - the plaintiff's legal > team. I don't see what's wrong with the label "immature hacker anarchists". In fact it's rather a nice analog to KKK. I'd love it if the plaintiff's legal team called us that. It would be as good as an admission that the case is about power, not commerce. > The appeals judge is quite likely to take any direct attack on Kaplan > as a veiled attack on the legal system as a whole, and therefore against > himself/herself. Bear in mind that the appeals judge may even *know* > Kaplan or at least know *of* Kaplan. ( I believe Kaplan is regarded in > legal circles as quite knowlegeable and respectable. ) > > An attack by the likes of us on Kaplan would probably look to an appeals > judge like an attack by Micro$oft on Linus Torvalds would to the slashdot > community! The reaction would be 99% kneejerk, and not good for us. If the first 99% is kneejerk and the last 1% is recognition that the first 99% was kneejerk then we still make our point. The issues in this case are political, not economic. That's why I want it noted that we are the enemy. We don't need to be respectable. We need to be a repressed political viewpoint. > Leave it out. List Kaplan's perceived mistreatment(s) of us and our cause > as neutrally as possible. > > All this IMHO of course.... > > -- > > Steve | Steve's law of House Rewiring: > steve@equiinet.co.uk | "No matter how many power sockets > Phone: +44 1792 540009 | you fit in a room, you will run > Fax: +44 1792 295811 | out within the first week of use > --------------------------------------------+ even if you took Steve's law of > http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | House Rewiring into account" -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 09:11:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA27347 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:11:04 -0500 Received: from web6405.mail.yahoo.com (web6405.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.22.153]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA27344 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:11:01 -0500 Message-ID: <20001101141229.7517.qmail@web6405.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.91.17.43] by web6405.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 01 Nov 2000 06:12:29 PST Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 06:12:29 -0800 (PST) From: Pete Broule Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici 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 --- Sphere wrote: > > > Pete Broule wrote: > > > > --- Sphere wrote: > > > As the enemy, we have problems with judge Kaplan's > > > opinion. It was against us. We think the judge > > > was biased in his decision. Let's list the points > > > where the judge demonstrated his bias and in the > > > process ignored both law and precident. > > > > If you mean his bias against the defendants, then, > > supposedly, it's theirs to discuss. If you mean his > > bias against us, then, if I understand correctly, > > it has no legal significance. There isn't a rule > > that a judge shouldn't be biased against any third > > party, is there? > > > > > > That is not my understanding of the chilling > effects of restraint of speech. Almost every > opinion I've read on the matter has made at > least a passing reference to the effects a > decision may have upon others. Granted, it does matter whether a decision hurts third parties. But have you seen any reference to *bias* against others? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? >From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. http://experts.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 09:20:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA27492 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:20:55 -0500 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 JAA27489 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:20:54 -0500 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 JAA20099 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:22:22 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:22:22 -0500 (EST) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici In-Reply-To: <39FF5978.5C4C3BD@mediaone.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 10/31/00 at 18:44, 'twas brillig and Sphere scrobe: [...] > > BTW -- Who on this list is known to exist in the > court records? I know Jon is on the list. [...] I am too, albeit in nowhere near as illustrious a role. (Kaplan (ab)used my testimony in a footnote somewhere IIRC.) Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 09:30:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA27597 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:30:42 -0500 Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA27592 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:30:41 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA00522 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:32:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A002968.7EF4B184@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 09:32:08 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici References: <20001101141229.7517.qmail@web6405.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 Pete Broule wrote: > > --- Sphere wrote: > > > > > > Pete Broule wrote: > > > > > > --- Sphere wrote: > > > > As the enemy, we have problems with judge Kaplan's > > > > opinion. It was against us. We think the judge > > > > was biased in his decision. Let's list the points > > > > where the judge demonstrated his bias and in the > > > > process ignored both law and precident. > > > > > > If you mean his bias against the defendants, then, > > > supposedly, it's theirs to discuss. If you mean his > > > bias against us, then, if I understand correctly, > > > it has no legal significance. There isn't a rule > > > that a judge shouldn't be biased against any third > > > party, is there? > > > > > > > > > > > That is not my understanding of the chilling > > effects of restraint of speech. Almost every > > opinion I've read on the matter has made at > > least a passing reference to the effects a > > decision may have upon others. > > Granted, it does matter whether a decision hurts > third parties. But have you seen any reference > to *bias* against others? > Specifically, disparaging remarks by the court about the open source movement. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 10:29:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA28310 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:29:49 -0500 Received: from dial113.roadrunner.com (sf-du113.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.113]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA28305 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:29:45 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial113.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01789 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:21:37 -0700 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:21:35 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno transcript Message-ID: <20001101082135.A1751@localhost> References: <4.1.20001031220840.01e25bd0@law.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <4.1.20001031220840.01e25bd0@law.harvard.edu>; from wendy@seltzer.com on Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 06:47:19AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 06:47:19AM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Transcripts are now online from the October 5 oral arguments in Eldred v. > Reno, in the D.C. Circuit, wherein it is conceded that Congress cannot > incent dead authors. Prof. Larry Lessig argued for the plaintiffs > challenging the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. The judges > responded with some skepticism to the government's argument that > international uniformity was a strong enough interest to justify a > retroactive extension of copyright. We await the decision. > > Arguments: > or PDF that there is an item, let's say a film master. Which before the copyright has expired will become unusable if they don't have any incentive, to let's say digitize it before it's too late. The one who would like to republish it after it enters the public domain, won't have that opportunity, as you were suggesting, you know, putting the books on the Internet or something like that. Because the work will be gone during it's protected period. There are fair use exemption for libraries to make additional copies for preservation purposes. There are requirements for mandatory deposit with the US Library of Congress (Although Congress has changed the law so that many things need not be deposited, there is administrative leeway at US LOC in setting rules for deposit). To the extent that the court is talking about films, the destruction of master prints, and consequent loss of the work, this is actually a problem with the "twistification" of publication --- that which is "published" is available for public access, but that which is widely available to the public is not necessarily "published". There is no requirement for deposit, so there is no archival copy. So-called copyright "formalities" are nothing of kind. They are important to implementing of the policy of "promote progress". To the extent that deposit of best-copy materials can't keep up with the geological length of copyright terms, those terms should be ruled unconstitutional. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 11:20:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA29577 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:20:04 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA29574 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:20:02 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA09468; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:21:26 GMT Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:21:26 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <3A00090F.AE8F899A@mediaone.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sphere wrote: > Steve Hosgood wrote: > > I think it would be imprudent of us to make any hint of the fact that > > we might consider Kaplan as "the enemy". We would risk being labelled > > "immature hacker anarchists" by the real enemy - the plaintiff's legal > > team. > > I don't see what's wrong with the label "immature > hacker anarchists". In fact it's rather a nice > analog to KKK. > Doing that would make it impossible to win the hearts and minds of the people or the judges. We're fighting an uphill battle that we're sure to lose for stupid reasons if we do it that way. Remember, this battle is twofold - we're only really dealing with one aspect right now, i.e compiling carefully argued lists of why we believe the lower court made mistakes and fell foul of quite a few prior judgements and maybe even the U.S constitution itself. The other battle however is more subtle, and concerns getting a fair hearing out of the judge(s) and the newspapers. Chances are that the judge or judges are somewhat older than most of the OSS community, and will be used to thinking with the value-system of the previous generation. This of course is the value-system still championed by the plaintiffs who will be seeking to maximise the benefit of appearing to be "the good guys" from the outset. They will also of course jump at *any* chance of equating the OSS community with those anti-WTO demonstrators who trashed the business centres of several major cities around the world earlier this year. The newspapers, likewise think with that older value-system. This they do because significant proportions of their readers do (younger people don't buy as many newspapers). They will be looking for headlines to help sell their papers, and demonising our case will suit them nicely. We need them to be carrying headlines pointing out that "In an evil scam perpetrated by the MPAA, Mr & Mrs Joe Public are being subjected to Orwellian thought control propped up by evil doers in congress! Write to your senator now!" > I'd love it if the plaintiff's legal team called > us ["immature hacker anarchists"/Klansmen]. It would be as good > as an admission that the case is about power, not commerce. > No way! They'll twist that into claiming that the case is really about "good-ol' all-American values" vs. "evil international anti-American internet commies". Regardless of the arguments, the *people* (and in this case, I suspect, the judge(s)) will go for "good-ol' all-American values" instinctively. We won't win this case unless we can, in the end, convince "the people" and hopefully the judge(s) that we represent their interests, and that MPAA are the evil empire seeking to rip them all off. The importance of the support of the people is well known - here's a quote (maybe not the best one) from Machiavelli's "The Prince", Chap 9: Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him than if he had been raised to the principality by their favours; and the prince can win their affections in many ways, but as these vary according to the circumstances one cannot give fixed rules, so I omit them; but, I repeat, it is necessary for a prince to have the people friendly, otherwise he has no security in adversity. That's 500 year old wisdom, but I've seen similar in a book I read a while back concerning the history of the SAS (the British Army's elite unit) who often find themselves fighting guerilla style behind the lines and have learnt the hard way to win the hearts and minds of the local people *first* and then attack the enemy second. That way, they win. The other way, they struggle and might lose. > We don't need to be respectable. We need to > be a repressed political viewpoint. > We need to be representing a respectable repressed political viewpoint! Then we can fight the war in the newspapers as well as the courtrooms. ---------------------------------------------------- Again, all of the above IMHO of course, and my possibly jaundiced view of the motives and views of editors of newspapers is based on British ones, not American. I doubt they're that dissimilar though. -- Steve | Steve's law of House Rewiring: steve@equiinet.co.uk | "No matter how many power sockets Phone: +44 1792 540009 | you fit in a room, you will run Fax: +44 1792 295811 | out within the first week of use --------------------------------------------+ even if you took Steve's law of http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | House Rewiring into account" From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 11:31:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA29732 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:31:24 -0500 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 LAA29729 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:30:58 -0500 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 LAA32291; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:33:27 -0500 Message-Id: <200011011633.LAA32291@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: DMCA Final Rule In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:29:04 MST." <000e01c04368$72535ea0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 11:32:57 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "John Zulauf" writes: : So... we have two exceptions -- here's the second. Just how far does it : stretch. : : "The second class, ``Literary works, including computer programs and : databases, : protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access : because of malfunction, damage or obsoleteness,'' " : : (1) Could one damage (intentionally or unintentionally) a DVD in such a way : that CSS could not read it but that DeCSS could? : : How do you parse this. "access control mechanism that fail ... because of : ... damage" One could parse this as "once an mechanism fails, you can : circumvent it" or "if a mechanism **can** fail due to damage, you can : circumvent it." Given the 2nd parsing, if CSS would fail to permit access : based on damage, then it must be exempted from the anti-circumvention. (so : would Divx... and by the way, since Divx (Circuit City) is now obsolete -- : it is now hackable The second way is the way I read it. If your DVD player breaks, then the access control mechanism fails to permit access because of malfunction. And if the DVD player doesn't break, the acess control mechanism still fails to permit access because of malfunction. In particular CSS always fails to permit access because of malfunction---it always has and always will. So it is now OK, as it was before Oct. 28, for you to circumvent CSS. Only trouble is that that doesn't help those charged with violationg 12 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2). -- 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 Wed Nov 1 12:04:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA31137 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:04:54 -0500 Received: from web6405.mail.yahoo.com (web6405.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.22.153]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA31134 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:04:43 -0500 Message-ID: <20001101170459.29828.qmail@web6405.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [207.1.61.112] by web6405.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 01 Nov 2000 09:04:59 PST Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:04:59 -0800 (PST) From: Pete Broule Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici 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 --- Sphere wrote: > > > Pete Broule wrote: > > > > --- Sphere wrote: > > > > > > > > > Pete Broule wrote: > > > > > > > > --- Sphere wrote: > > > > > As the enemy, we have problems with judge Kaplan's > > > > > opinion. It was against us. We think the judge > > > > > was biased in his decision. Let's list the points > > > > > where the judge demonstrated his bias and in the > > > > > process ignored both law and precident. > > > > > > > > If you mean his bias against the defendants, then, > > > > supposedly, it's theirs to discuss. If you mean his > > > > bias against us, then, if I understand correctly, > > > > it has no legal significance. There isn't a rule > > > > that a judge shouldn't be biased against any third > > > > party, is there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not my understanding of the chilling > > > effects of restraint of speech. Almost every > > > opinion I've read on the matter has made at > > > least a passing reference to the effects a > > > decision may have upon others. > > > > Granted, it does matter whether a decision hurts > > third parties. But have you seen any reference > > to *bias* against others? > > > > > Specifically, disparaging remarks by the > court about the open source movement. That would be an evidence of his bias against the open source movement. But why would it matter to the appelate court? There's no question that we can say, "We aren't a party in the case, but the decision hurts us, so please reverse it." I just don't think we can say (and be listened to), "We aren't a party in the case, but the judge is biased against us, so please void the trial." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? >From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. http://experts.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 12:09:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA31248 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:09:04 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA31245 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:09:02 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:10:26 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:10:24 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/01/2000 09:10:25 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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. Cold Hard Sobering Reason is what is needed-rather than the inflammatory Molotov cocktail at this point. (And what attorney will submit the brief if the language in it is likely to call them before the bar?). The fact is that the MPAA et.al., have used a multifaceted strategy to achieve their goal. DMCA is one. MickeyMouse Extension Act is another part. DVDCAA is a third. Anti-Trust actions (restraint of trade, restrictive licenses) are yet another part. This brief only addresses the first skirmish on the DMCA front. Even if successful, alone it does not solve the whole problem. Your quotation raises another aspect of this. Namely the newspapers, the spin they put on things, and the fact that thegeneral public doesn't understand yet what they are being asked to give up. Look at the PR campaign they are likely to use on the public..."Isn't the MPAA being so wonderful to the public? I mean they are giving them these WONDERFUL movies, that look great and look the players are not as expensive as you thought. Gee aren't we being so friendly to you or what. Afterall, you can buy a DVD at $20 it's really cheaper than buying 2, 3 or 4 tickets at the theatre and look at it anytime you want with your family over and over again. But those screaming hoards of hacker anarchist are doing bad things. They are hurting you by doing them because we may have to change things to protect us from them..afterall you have your entertainment so we should keep our property shouldn't we" .....Yes it PBS but that's the line they are using to keep the public friendly. The real question is how to "attack" on the other fronts as well. Maybe compiling a list of offenses and what they mean to Joe Public is a startingpoint "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici arvard.edu 11/01/00 08:23 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Sphere wrote: > Steve Hosgood wrote: > > I think it would be imprudent of us to make any hint of the fact that > > we might consider Kaplan as "the enemy". We would risk being labelled > > "immature hacker anarchists" by the real enemy - the plaintiff's legal > > team. > > I don't see what's wrong with the label "immature > hacker anarchists". In fact it's rather a nice > analog to KKK. > Doing that would make it impossible to win the hearts and minds of the people or the judges. We're fighting an uphill battle that we're sure to lose for stupid reasons if we do it that way. Remember, this battle is twofold - we're only really dealing with one aspect right now, i.e compiling carefully argued lists of why we believe the lower court made mistakes and fell foul of quite a few prior judgements and maybe even the U.S constitution itself. The other battle however is more subtle, and concerns getting a fair hearing out of the judge(s) and the newspapers. Chances are that the judge or judges are somewhat older than most of the OSS community, and will be used to thinking with the value-system of the previous generation. This of course is the value-system still championed by the plaintiffs who will be seeking to maximise the benefit of appearing to be "the good guys" from the outset. They will also of course jump at *any* chance of equating the OSS community with those anti-WTO demonstrators who trashed the business centres of several major cities around the world earlier this year. The newspapers, likewise think with that older value-system. This they do because significant proportions of their readers do (younger people don't buy as many newspapers). They will be looking for headlines to help sell their papers, and demonising our case will suit them nicely. We need them to be carrying headlines pointing out that "In an evil scam perpetrated by the MPAA, Mr & Mrs Joe Public are being subjected to Orwellian thought control propped up by evil doers in congress! Write to your senator now!" > I'd love it if the plaintiff's legal team called > us ["immature hacker anarchists"/Klansmen]. It would be as good > as an admission that the case is about power, not commerce. > No way! They'll twist that into claiming that the case is really about "good-ol' all-American values" vs. "evil international anti-American internet commies". Regardless of the arguments, the *people* (and in this case, I suspect, the judge(s)) will go for "good-ol' all-American values" instinctively. We won't win this case unless we can, in the end, convince "the people" and hopefully the judge(s) that we represent their interests, and that MPAA are the evil empire seeking to rip them all off. The importance of the support of the people is well known - here's a quote (maybe not the best one) from Machiavelli's "The Prince", Chap 9: Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him than if he had been raised to the principality by their favours; and the prince can win their affections in many ways, but as these vary according to the circumstances one cannot give fixed rules, so I omit them; but, I repeat, it is necessary for a prince to have the people friendly, otherwise he has no security in adversity. That's 500 year old wisdom, but I've seen similar in a book I read a while back concerning the history of the SAS (the British Army's elite unit) who often find themselves fighting guerilla style behind the lines and have learnt the hard way to win the hearts and minds of the local people *first* and then attack the enemy second. That way, they win. The other way, they struggle and might lose. > We don't need to be respectable. We need to > be a repressed political viewpoint. > We need to be representing a respectable repressed political viewpoint! Then we can fight the war in the newspapers as well as the courtrooms. ---------------------------------------------------- Again, all of the above IMHO of course, and my possibly jaundiced view of the motives and views of editors of newspapers is based on British ones, not American. I doubt they're that dissimilar though. -- Steve | Steve's law of House Rewiring: steve@equiinet.co.uk | "No matter how many power sockets Phone: +44 1792 540009 | you fit in a room, you will run Fax: +44 1792 295811 | out within the first week of use --------------------------------------------+ even if you took Steve's law of http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | House Rewiring into account" From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 12:40:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA32253 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:40:07 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA32250 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:40:06 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:41:29 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: DMCA Final Rule To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:41:28 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/01/2000 09:41:28 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 haven't seen anything on the data formats on DVDs. Do you have a reference? I'd like to know what the function of the first 128bit block is and why 84-88 are so special. Frank Andrew Stevenson To: Dvd-Discuss Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: DMCA Final Rule 11/01/00 12:51 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Each block is encrypted separately, so any error will not propagate outside these 2048 byte blocks. Any single bitt error in the 1920 encrypted bytes of the block, will result in a single byte error of the decoded stream, any single bit error in the unencrypted first 128 bytes will result not cause additional corruption, unless it is in byte 84,85,86,87 or 88, where it will cause corruption of the entire 1920 byte encrypted chunk. frank On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, John Zulauf wrote: > (2) Could one make the claim that encrypted content is (by it's nature) less > damage tolerant and thus (to allow access after damage) must be proactively > archived to allow access after damage? > > I've understood from some of the discussion here that a single byte error in > a CSS encode stream renders the remainder illegible. Can anyone confirm or > deny this? > > john 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 Nov 1 14:19:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01545 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 14:19:06 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA01542 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 14:19:04 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 20:09:03 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:33:10 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:33:10 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici Message-ID: <20001101193310.A10357@lemuria.org> References: <20001101170459.29828.qmail@web6405.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001101170459.29828.qmail@web6405.mail.yahoo.com>; from pbroule@yahoo.com on Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 09:04:59AM -0800 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Pete Broule wrote: > > Specifically, disparaging remarks by the > > court about the open source movement. > > That would be an evidence of his bias against the > open source movement. But why would it matter to > the appelate court? There's no question that we > can say, "We aren't a party in the case, but the > decision hurts us, so please reverse it." I just > don't think we can say (and be listened to), > "We aren't a party in the case, but the judge > is biased against us, so please void the trial." here's a line: - the lower court seems obviously biased against the free software movement, which many of us are members of - the achievements of the free software movement don't have to be enumerated. among other things, most of the internet runs on free software, including a majority(1) of the plaintiff's very own websites and e-mail systems - one of the many, many current free software projects is a DVD player for the Linux operating system. although up to now no other DVD player for this OS is available, that is irrelevant because it is obvious that the existence of one or several products does not and should not stop the development of rival products - otherwise we would be living in a world where only one brand of cars, planes or computers exist - the very first that were ever developed. I believe the court will share my belief that the development of other products, even though cars or DVD players were/are already available, has been a positive thing. - decss was - according to the testimony of one of its developers which the lower court does away with all too easily - developed as part or as a supporting effort to this free software DVD player. - the lower courts disparaging of the whole free software movement, and the developers of LiVid especially, does a grave unjustice on the currently most successful and diverse international software development effort. many important projects, for example GnuPG, FreeS/Wan and others, have already left the USA due to chilling laws or court rulings (especially in the field of encryption, i.e. the same arena of CSS). - it follows from these facts and the lower courts attacks on the free software movement - and it can already be shown to happen - that the court ruling against DeCSS will not in the least accomplish what the plaintiffs are seeking, even ignoring the fact that their goals themselves are highly questionable. the effect of the court ruling will, on the contrary, be that the disrespect of the court for free software will be answered with a likewise disrespect for the legal system, and that valuable know-how will simply transfer itself to other countries, in effect turning the court decision into a big joke on itself. - for these reasons, the court ruling as it stands is a minimal gain to the plaintiffs, delaying the spread of DeCSS for anywhere between a few minutes and several hours, while it does irreversable damage to the free software movement, the legal system of the USA and the progress of technology in the DVD market, at least within the USA. (1) footnote with references here -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 16:12:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03780 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:12:20 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA03777 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:12:18 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10489 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 14:13:46 -0700 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 14:13:46 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici In-Reply-To: <20001101170459.29828.qmail@web6405.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 Perhaps the statements against us can be used in the "who we are" part as a segueway (sp?) into the list of errors that Kaplan made. "Most of the membership of this group identifies with the Open Source movement, which Kaplan inappropriately categorized as . This is the first among many errors we feel that Kaplan made in his decision..." On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Pete Broule wrote: > > --- Sphere wrote: > > > > > > Pete Broule wrote: > > > > > > --- Sphere wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete Broule wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- Sphere wrote: > > > > > > As the enemy, we have problems with judge Kaplan's > > > > > > opinion. It was against us. We think the judge > > > > > > was biased in his decision. Let's list the points > > > > > > where the judge demonstrated his bias and in the > > > > > > process ignored both law and precident. > > > > > > > > > > If you mean his bias against the defendants, then, > > > > > supposedly, it's theirs to discuss. If you mean his > > > > > bias against us, then, if I understand correctly, > > > > > it has no legal significance. There isn't a rule > > > > > that a judge shouldn't be biased against any third > > > > > party, is there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not my understanding of the chilling > > > > effects of restraint of speech. Almost every > > > > opinion I've read on the matter has made at > > > > least a passing reference to the effects a > > > > decision may have upon others. > > > > > > Granted, it does matter whether a decision hurts > > > third parties. But have you seen any reference > > > to *bias* against others? > > > > > > > > > Specifically, disparaging remarks by the > > court about the open source movement. > > That would be an evidence of his bias against the > open source movement. But why would it matter to > the appelate court? There's no question that we > can say, "We aren't a party in the case, but the > decision hurts us, so please reverse it." I just > don't think we can say (and be listened to), > "We aren't a party in the case, but the judge > is biased against us, so please void the trial." > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > >From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. > http://experts.yahoo.com/ > -- When you are having a bad day, and it seems like everybody is trying to tick you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle. Who is John galt? Galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 17:02:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04231 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:02:28 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA04228 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:02:26 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA02839 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:03:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:03:55 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici 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, 1 Nov 2000, John Galt wrote: > > Perhaps the statements against us can be used in the "who we are" part as > a segueway (sp?) into the list of errors that Kaplan made. > > "Most of the membership of this group identifies with the Open Source > movement, which Kaplan inappropriately categorized as . This is the > first among many errors we feel that Kaplan made in his decision... Good, good... This gets right to the heart of why this brief should be written-- we form a class of people who wouldb be adversely impacted by a ruling for the MPAA-- and yet the court transcripts show that arguments espousing our philosophy haveb been deliberately twisted or ignored. Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 18:00:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA04776 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:00:56 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA04773 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:00:55 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA04603 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:02:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:02:23 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici 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 John Galt wrote: > > Perhaps the statements against us can be used in the "who we are" part as > a segueway (sp?) into the list of errors that Kaplan made. > > "Most of the membership of this group identifies with the Open Source > movement, which Kaplan inappropriately categorized as . This is the > first among many errors we feel that Kaplan made in his decision..." > We don't need heavy-handed characterization of Kaplan's motives. We can let his opinion speak for itself, and the simple fact that we are noting them speaks to our viewpoint. STATEMENT OF INTEREST The amici are engineers, programmers, scientists, lawyers, professors, students, and inventors, all of whom collaborate voluntarily on OpenLaw, an online public forum for discussing law. In simple terms, we are the enemy. Our ranks include Jon Johanson, Ole Craig, defendent in <> Tom Vogt, and many others. Most of the membership of this group identifies with the Open Source movement, which Kaplan categorized as . This characterization is one of the errors we feel that Kaplan has made in his opinion. ERRORS WE BELIEVE WERE MADE IN THE OPINION (lifted from Paul) [move 2.D. to front] 1. A. CSS _is_ prophylactic to copying: p1, l 4-5; p10, l 10; p73 l 14. B. CSS is _not_ prophylactic: p72, l 12-13; p73 fn 244. C. Confused private contract with public law: p72, l 14; p73 l 1-4. 2. A. An injunction would be a prior restraint: B. An injunction might not be a prior restraint: p66, fn 226. C. Court ignores s.1203(b)(1): p64, l 3-4, l 7-8; p54, l 14-15; p55, l 1-3. D. Ellipsis covering prohibition on prior restraints contained in s.1203(b)(1): p83, l 5-6. 3. A. Confuses "effective" with strength of the access control, ignores or fails to grasp operation of the technological measure "with authority of copyright owner": p33. B. Constructs a theory of "authorization" to satisfy "effective" test: C. Cause of action is unclear, DVDCCA is licensor: 4. Speech (_O'Brien_ and a few other goodies). A. Functionality = conduct: p62, l 11-14; p B. "Speech" relabelled as "technology": p36, l 1 "technological"; p36, l 6 "program"; p36, l 7 "written" == speech. C. Compelled speech: p39, l 17. 5. Confuses a vault's combination with the vault's locking mechanism: p27, l 12-19; p28, l 1-2; p61-62 (disease metaphor depends on "key == lock" and patent-like regulation of CSS). 6. A. No mention of HTTP when discussing the web: p8. B. "Web-site" is an imposed structure on the web. It exists for the convenience of people: p46. 7. Perceptual quality of DVD Video limited by NTSC if performed using a TV: p10, l 4-6. 8. "Encrypted" data is subject to perfect copying, just like descrambled data. The court ignores this point: p61. 9. Mentions business models, but not region coding or first sale: p13, l 9-11; p14, l 1-3. 10. Piracy = copying? p14, l 11. 11. Omits IFO's on DVD, thus ignores the fact that DVD Video is a program: p15, l 5. 12. "No infringement" was stipulated by plaintiffs, yet the Court references "piracy" and copying: p 24, l 12; p28, l 3 "DeCSS to copy"; p61, l 15-16 "capable of making perfect copies"; p65, fn219 _Salinger_, _Dallas Cowboys_, etc.; p67 l 9 "intellectual property piracy are endemic", p14, l 8 "piracy", l 11 "piracy". p60, l 9 "assumption"! The court is *assuming* copying! I guess the "no infringement" stipulation has been memory-holed. 13. Quotes from treaties don't mention "access control", they mention "rights": p28. Yet 1201(b) exists, and the court finds that only 1201(a) is pertinent. 14. Avoidance of commerce (i.e. theft of a copy) is equated with use ("access") after lawful acquisition (i.e. no theft of a copy): p29. Confuses "theft" (infringement) of a work with theft of a copy. The work and the copy are distinct kinds of entities even if one is encoded in the other. Illegal copying is not the theft of a copy. 15. Patent-like: p56, l 1 "functional"; covers court's tracks at 59, l 11-13; p72 fn243 "technology to build a ... DVD player has been licensed" "licensed" technology supported by anti-trafficking is patent-like; does not note that descrambling is necessary to build a player device p71. "No technological vetting" is in the statute s.1201(c)(3). 16. Which *one* of the copyright owner(s) can "authorize"? p39, l 15-17; p40, l 1-2. Does it take all of them? Or is it the DVDCCA that they were supposed to get authorization from? 17. p60, l 10: "And that is not all", at the end of a paragraph? The court's writing is bizarre. 18. Claims Congress struck a balance (p2, l 17-19), fails to mention that ss.1201(c)(1,4) *are* the balance: p2; p42; p45. 19. The court confuses 1201(a)(2) rule-making with a fair use exemption to 1201(a)(1): p43, l 11-16. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 18:09:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA05450 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:09:40 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA05447 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:09:39 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA08320 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:11:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00A30B.C96B34BF@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:11:07 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici 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 10/31/00 at 18:44, 'twas brillig and Sphere scrobe: > [...] > > > > BTW -- Who on this list is known to exist in the > > court records? I know Jon is on the list. > [...] > > I am too, albeit in nowhere near as illustrious a role. > (Kaplan (ab)used my testimony in a footnote somewhere IIRC.) > > Ole Don't complain. I don't even exist, and you've gotten honorable mention. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 18:11:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA05528 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:11:18 -0500 Received: from mail.travel-net.com (root@mail.travel-net.com [204.92.71.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA05523 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:11:16 -0500 Received: from travel-net.com (trj106.travel-net.com [207.176.160.106]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22688 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:12:40 -0500 Message-ID: <3A00A35C.CE16BD33@travel-net.com> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:12:28 -0500 From: Dan Steinberg 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] Amici References: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.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 ummmmmmm not that for one second I am buying into that phrasing for the STATEMENT OF INTEREST para, but if it is written 'we are the enemy' surely it should be written whose enemy we are? The evil empire? Dennis Rodman? Kaplan? MPAA? error 603980111 - no opening quibble... Sphere wrote: > John Galt wrote: > > > > Perhaps the statements against us can be used in the "who we are" part as > > a segueway (sp?) into the list of errors that Kaplan made. > > > > "Most of the membership of this group identifies with the Open Source > > movement, which Kaplan inappropriately categorized as . This is the > > first among many errors we feel that Kaplan made in his decision..." > > > > We don't need heavy-handed characterization of Kaplan's motives. > We can let his opinion speak for itself, and the simple fact > that we are noting them speaks to our viewpoint. > > STATEMENT OF INTEREST > > The amici are engineers, programmers, scientists, lawyers, professors, > students, and inventors, all of whom collaborate voluntarily on OpenLaw, > an online public forum for discussing law. In simple terms, we are the > enemy. > > Our ranks include Jon Johanson, Ole Craig, defendent in <> Tom Vogt, > and many others. Most of the membership of this group identifies with > the Open Source movement, which Kaplan categorized as . This > characterization is one of the errors we feel that Kaplan has made in > his opinion. > > ERRORS WE BELIEVE WERE MADE IN THE OPINION (lifted from Paul) > > [move 2.D. to front] > > 1. A. CSS _is_ prophylactic to copying: p1, l 4-5; p10, l 10; p73 l 14. > B. CSS is _not_ prophylactic: p72, l 12-13; p73 fn 244. > C. Confused private contract with public law: p72, l 14; p73 l 1-4. > > 2. A. An injunction would be a prior restraint: > B. An injunction might not be a prior restraint: p66, fn 226. > C. Court ignores s.1203(b)(1): p64, l 3-4, l 7-8; p54, l 14-15; p55, > l > 1-3. > D. Ellipsis covering prohibition on prior restraints contained in > s.1203(b)(1): p83, l 5-6. > > 3. A. Confuses "effective" with strength of the access control, ignores > or fails to grasp operation of the technological measure "with > authority of copyright owner": p33. > B. Constructs a theory of "authorization" to satisfy "effective" > test: > C. Cause of action is unclear, DVDCCA is licensor: > > 4. Speech (_O'Brien_ and a few other goodies). > A. Functionality = conduct: p62, l 11-14; p > B. "Speech" relabelled as "technology": p36, l 1 "technological"; > p36, > l 6 "program"; p36, l 7 "written" == speech. > C. Compelled speech: p39, l 17. > > 5. Confuses a vault's combination with the vault's locking mechanism: > p27, l 12-19; p28, l 1-2; p61-62 (disease metaphor depends on "key == > lock" and patent-like regulation of CSS). > > 6. A. No mention of HTTP when discussing the web: p8. > B. "Web-site" is an imposed structure on the web. It exists for the > convenience of people: p46. > > 7. Perceptual quality of DVD Video limited by NTSC if performed using a > TV: p10, l 4-6. > > 8. "Encrypted" data is subject to perfect copying, just like descrambled > data. The court ignores this point: p61. > > 9. Mentions business models, but not region coding or first sale: p13, l > 9-11; > p14, l 1-3. > > 10. Piracy = copying? p14, l 11. > > 11. Omits IFO's on DVD, thus ignores the fact that DVD Video is a > program: > p15, l 5. > > 12. "No infringement" was stipulated by plaintiffs, yet the Court > references > "piracy" and copying: p 24, l 12; p28, l 3 "DeCSS to copy"; p61, l > 15-16 > "capable of making perfect copies"; p65, fn219 _Salinger_, _Dallas > Cowboys_, etc.; p67 l 9 "intellectual property piracy are endemic", > p14, l 8 "piracy", l 11 "piracy". p60, l 9 "assumption"! The court > is > *assuming* copying! I guess the "no infringement" stipulation has > been > memory-holed. > > 13. Quotes from treaties don't mention "access control", they mention > "rights": p28. Yet 1201(b) exists, and the court finds that only > 1201(a) > is pertinent. > > 14. Avoidance of commerce (i.e. theft of a copy) is equated with use > ("access") after lawful acquisition (i.e. no theft of a copy): p29. > Confuses "theft" (infringement) of a work with theft of a copy. > The work and the copy are distinct kinds of entities even if one > is encoded in the other. Illegal copying is not the theft of a copy. > > 15. Patent-like: p56, l 1 "functional"; covers court's tracks at 59, l > 11-13; > p72 fn243 "technology to build a ... DVD player has been licensed" > "licensed" technology supported by anti-trafficking is patent-like; > does not note that descrambling is necessary to build a player > device p71. "No technological vetting" is in the statute > s.1201(c)(3). > > 16. Which *one* of the copyright owner(s) can "authorize"? p39, l 15-17; > p40, l 1-2. Does it take all of them? Or is it the DVDCCA that they > were supposed to get authorization from? > > 17. p60, l 10: "And that is not all", at the end of a paragraph? The > court's > writing is bizarre. > > 18. Claims Congress struck a balance (p2, l 17-19), fails to mention > that > ss.1201(c)(1,4) *are* the balance: p2; p42; p45. > > 19. The court confuses 1201(a)(2) rule-making with a fair use exemption > to > 1201(a)(1): p43, l 11-16. > > -- > Sphere. > > In the tower light a lamp. > One if they come by law. > Two if they come by technology. -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@vrx.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 18:11:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA05519 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:11:16 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [209.98.6.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA05514 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:11:14 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [163.228.19.198]) by tneu.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A01AB026 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:08:45 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:08:45 -0600 (CST) From: tim To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici In-Reply-To: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.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 Don't forget Frank Stevenson. He's on the list! On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Sphere wrote: > > > John Galt wrote: > > > > Perhaps the statements against us can be used in the "who we are" part as > > a segueway (sp?) into the list of errors that Kaplan made. > > > > "Most of the membership of this group identifies with the Open Source > > movement, which Kaplan inappropriately categorized as . This is the > > first among many errors we feel that Kaplan made in his decision..." > > > > We don't need heavy-handed characterization of Kaplan's motives. > We can let his opinion speak for itself, and the simple fact > that we are noting them speaks to our viewpoint. > > STATEMENT OF INTEREST > > The amici are engineers, programmers, scientists, lawyers, professors, > students, and inventors, all of whom collaborate voluntarily on OpenLaw, > an online public forum for discussing law. In simple terms, we are the > enemy. > > Our ranks include Jon Johanson, Ole Craig, defendent in <> Tom Vogt, > and many others. Most of the membership of this group identifies with > the Open Source movement, which Kaplan categorized as . This > characterization is one of the errors we feel that Kaplan has made in > his opinion. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- What the president of the Motion Picture Association of America says about taking away your constitutional rights: "I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out reverse engineering; he threw out linking." - Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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, 1 Nov 2000 18:12:38 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA09471 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:14:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00A3BD.D6F4F070@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:14:05 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici 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 Steve Hosgood wrote: > > Sphere wrote: > > Steve Hosgood wrote: > > > I think it would be imprudent of us to make any hint of the fact that > > > we might consider Kaplan as "the enemy". We would risk being labelled > > > "immature hacker anarchists" by the real enemy - the plaintiff's legal > > > team. > > > > I don't see what's wrong with the label "immature > > hacker anarchists". In fact it's rather a nice > > analog to KKK. > > > > Doing that would make it impossible to win the hearts and minds of the people > or the judges. We're fighting an uphill battle that we're sure to lose > for stupid reasons if we do it that way. > > Remember, this battle is twofold - we're only really dealing with one aspect > right now, i.e compiling carefully argued lists of why we believe the lower > court made mistakes and fell foul of quite a few prior judgements and maybe > even the U.S constitution itself. > > The other battle however is more subtle, and concerns getting a fair > hearing out of the judge(s) and the newspapers. Chances are that the judge We're not the ones looking for a fair hearing. 2600 is. We are what he was reporting on. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 18:24:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA05751 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:24:09 -0500 Received: from chmls20.mediaone.net (chmls20.mediaone.net [24.147.1.156]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA05748 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:24:08 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls20.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA13207 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:25:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00A671.F514F758@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:25:37 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici References: <20001101170459.29828.qmail@web6405.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 Pete Broule wrote: > > --- Sphere wrote: > > > > > > Pete Broule wrote: > > > > > > --- Sphere wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete Broule wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- Sphere wrote: > > > > > > As the enemy, we have problems with judge Kaplan's > > > > > > opinion. It was against us. We think the judge > > > > > > was biased in his decision. Let's list the points > > > > > > where the judge demonstrated his bias and in the > > > > > > process ignored both law and precident. > > > > > > > > > > If you mean his bias against the defendants, then, > > > > > supposedly, it's theirs to discuss. If you mean his > > > > > bias against us, then, if I understand correctly, > > > > > it has no legal significance. There isn't a rule > > > > > that a judge shouldn't be biased against any third > > > > > party, is there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not my understanding of the chilling > > > > effects of restraint of speech. Almost every > > > > opinion I've read on the matter has made at > > > > least a passing reference to the effects a > > > > decision may have upon others. > > > > > > Granted, it does matter whether a decision hurts > > > third parties. But have you seen any reference > > > to *bias* against others? > > > > > > > > > Specifically, disparaging remarks by the > > court about the open source movement. > > That would be an evidence of his bias against the > open source movement. But why would it matter to > the appelate court? There's no question that we > can say, "We aren't a party in the case, but the > decision hurts us, so please reverse it." I just > don't think we can say (and be listened to), > "We aren't a party in the case, but the judge > is biased against us, so please void the trial." I'm saying "The judge is biased against us, we are a minority political viewpoint, it is unconstitutional to prevent us from speaking." The issue is purely the question "is DeCSS commercial speech to which intermediate scrutiny can be applied, or political speech for which strict scrutiny must be used?" It doesn't matter what they think of our political viewpoint as long as they cannot escape recognizing it as political. We walk and talk like a duck, but I think we need to also point out we're a duck so they can't pretend not to notice that we are a duck. Actually, aside from demonstrating that we are a political viewpoint of some sort, it doesn't matter if our brief is 15 pages of blank paper. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 18:38:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA05962 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:38:45 -0500 Received: from chmls20.mediaone.net (chmls20.mediaone.net [24.147.1.156]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA05958 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:38:44 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls20.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA20249 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:40:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00A9DD.76C6A489@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:40:13 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici 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 wrote: > > Don't forget Frank Stevenson. > > He's on the list! > Noted -- though I ought to wait for him to speak up for himself... -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 18:41:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06075 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:41:38 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06066 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:41:21 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA00678 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:50:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:50:46 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno transcript Message-ID: <20001101185045.A32662@eldritchpress.org> References: <4.1.20001031220840.01e25bd0@law.harvard.edu> <20001101082135.A1751@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20001101082135.A1751@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 08:21:35AM -0700 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 08:21:35AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > [quoting ?]... > that there is an item, let's say a film master. Which before the > copyright has expired will become unusable if they don't have any > incentive, to let's say digitize it before it's too late. > > The one who would like to republish it after it enters the public > domain, won't have that opportunity, as you were suggesting, you know, > putting the books on the Internet or something like that. Because the > work will be gone during it's protected period. > > There are fair use exemption for libraries to make additional copies for > preservation purposes. The CTEA provides that libraries and archives may--in the last year of copyright term--make a copy of a work--provided the copyright owner has not registered it as having commercial value--and there is no provision for distributing the work to other than library clients. As far as I know, nobody has tested this provision for 1923 or 1924 works and placed them on the Internet. Apparently it was a bone thrown to the librarians, who resisted the CTEA in the first place, but if so it is an inedible one. As Paul points out, deposit of films is not mandatory since 1978-- and many films were not deposited before then--they were only shown in theaters and not sold to the public. I can tell you that many books from the 1920s will not live to the date they enter the public domain--they are falling apart from acid paper and there are not resources to microfilm them, deacidify them, or digitize them. We "bookpeople" would love to be able to scan them for free and put them on the Internet, but we face jail terms if we did so and a copyright owner or heir emerged from the woodwork. The problem with old movies is acute--the Library of Congress has designated a large group as "orphan films"--the makers have gone out of business and it is no longer possible to determine who own the rights. The MPAA asserts that today's studios are the ones who are especially qualified to preserve and make available such films, and consequently deserve a handout in the form of longer copyright terms--however, there is no evidence that the studios wish to spend the money to preserve such films. Two of the plaintiffs in Eldred v. Reno are film preservation groups and are quite qualified to determine the economics of this matter, and the problems with existing laws. We hope the judges will listen to them. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 18:43:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06125 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:43:07 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06122 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:43:06 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA22708 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:44:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00AAE2.F81820E8@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:44:34 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici References: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.net> <3A00A35C.CE16BD33@travel-net.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 Dan Steinberg wrote: > > ummmmmmm not that for one second I am buying into that phrasing for the > STATEMENT OF INTEREST para, but if it is written 'we are the enemy' surely it > should be written whose enemy we are? The evil empire? Dennis Rodman? Kaplan? > MPAA? > > error 603980111 - no opening quibble... > Decidely not! Simply the enemy. We're gooks, kraut, chinks. Obviously, we're the MPAA's and all other monopolists' enemy -- but that does not mean we should qualify it. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 19:01:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA06271 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:01:09 -0500 Received: from mail.travel-net.com (root@mail.travel-net.com [204.92.71.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA06268 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:01:08 -0500 Received: from travel-net.com (trj106.travel-net.com [207.176.160.106]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26895 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:02:38 -0500 Message-ID: <3A00AF12.5AF69A0C@travel-net.com> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:02:26 -0500 From: Dan Steinberg 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] Amici References: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.net> <3A00A35C.CE16BD33@travel-net.com> <3A00AAE2.F81820E8@mediaone.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 Sphere wrote: > Dan Steinberg wrote: > > > > ummmmmmm not that for one second I am buying into that phrasing for the > > STATEMENT OF INTEREST para, but if it is written 'we are the enemy' surely it > > should be written whose enemy we are? The evil empire? Dennis Rodman? Kaplan? > > MPAA? > > > > error 603980111 - no opening quibble... > > > > Decidely not! Simply the enemy. We're gooks, kraut, > chinks. > > Obviously, we're the MPAA's and all other monopolists' > enemy -- but that does not mean we should qualify it. > > Ah ok.....but Im still not buying into it. And when I went to law school I was trained to assert that I was not the enemy.... -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@vrx.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 19:04:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA06584 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:04:51 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA06581 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:04:50 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA32219 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:06:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:06:17 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici In-Reply-To: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.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, 1 Nov 2000, Sphere wrote: > > > John Galt wrote: > > > > Perhaps the statements against us can be used in the "who we are" part as > > a segueway (sp?) into the list of errors that Kaplan made. > > > > "Most of the membership of this group identifies with the Open Source > > movement, which Kaplan inappropriately categorized as . This is the > > first among many errors we feel that Kaplan made in his decision..." > > > > We don't need heavy-handed characterization of Kaplan's motives. > We can let his opinion speak for itself, and the simple fact > that we are noting them speaks to our viewpoint. > > STATEMENT OF INTEREST > > The amici are engineers, programmers, scientists, lawyers, professors, > students, and inventors, all of whom collaborate voluntarily on OpenLaw, > an online public forum for discussing law. In simple terms, we are the > enemy. > > Our ranks include Jon Johanson, Ole Craig, defendent in <> Tom Vogt, > and many others. Most of the membership of this group identifies with > the Open Source movement, which Kaplan categorized as . This > characterization is one of the errors we feel that Kaplan has made in > his opinion. > Our ranks include Jon Johanson... Most of the memebrship strongly supports the ideals of the open source movement-- which argues that programmers and companies should -- as a conscious, informed decision-- release computer programs in a manner that allows easy modification by end users. The most preferred form is "source code", thus the term "open source". The open source paradigm allows ordinary citizens to participate in the building of reliable, secure, and largely bug-free programs and operating systems. So as to ensure that all programmers, regardless of their financial status, the open source philosophy requires that code be unencumbered by restrictive liscences or non-disclosure agreements. We fear, that should the plaintiffs prevail, corporations may be tempted to use provisions of the DMCA to arbitarily deny ceratin problem domains to open source software. [applications barrier to entry, advantage of open source is lost if most new applications require non-disclosure liscences, courts will be propping up closed source paradigms, etc]. Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 19:16:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA06802 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:16:36 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA06799 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:16:35 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA06863 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:18:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00B2BB.5619C2AA@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:18:03 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici References: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.net> <3A00A35C.CE16BD33@travel-net.com> <3A00AAE2.F81820E8@mediaone.net> <3A00AF12.5AF69A0C@travel-net.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 Dan Steinberg wrote: > > Sphere wrote: > > > Dan Steinberg wrote: > > > > > > ummmmmmm not that for one second I am buying into that phrasing for the > > > STATEMENT OF INTEREST para, but if it is written 'we are the enemy' surely it > > > should be written whose enemy we are? The evil empire? Dennis Rodman? Kaplan? > > > MPAA? > > > > > > error 603980111 - no opening quibble... > > > > > > > Decidely not! Simply the enemy. We're gooks, kraut, > > chinks. > > > > Obviously, we're the MPAA's and all other monopolists' > > enemy -- but that does not mean we should qualify it. > > > > > > Ah ok.....but Im still not buying into it. And when I went to law school I was > trained to assert that I was not the enemy.... > That makes sense. You're a lawyer, not a radical left-wing revolutionary with a bent to bring down the system and take us back to the simple days of our forefathers. Seriously, I'm not saying that anybody is our enemy -- quite the opposite. I'm saying that other people have made us their enemy, for whatever reasons. The label is a retorical device, and specifying who's enemy would destroy the effect. The effect of having the enemy speak up. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 19:34:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA06994 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:34:16 -0500 Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA06991 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:34:15 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14823 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:34:47 -0700 (MST) Received: from sessions.phx.primenet.com(206.132.239.114), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpdAAANhaOzC; Wed Nov 1 17:34:11 2000 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA07263 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:34:59 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:19:59 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00110117345700.01813@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 01 Nov 2000, Steve Hosgood wrote: > Doing that would make it impossible to win the hearts and minds of the people > or the judges. We're fighting an uphill battle that we're sure to lose > for stupid reasons if we do it that way. > > Remember, this battle is twofold - we're only really dealing with one aspect > right now, i.e compiling carefully argued lists of why we believe the lower > court made mistakes and fell foul of quite a few prior judgements and maybe > even the U.S constitution itself. > > The other battle however is more subtle, and concerns getting a fair > hearing out of the judge(s) and the newspapers. Chances are that the judge > or judges are somewhat older than most of the OSS community, and will be > used to thinking with the value-system of the previous generation. This > of course is the value-system still championed by the plaintiffs who will > be seeking to maximise the benefit of appearing to be "the good guys" from > the outset. They will also of course jump at *any* chance of equating the > OSS community with those anti-WTO demonstrators who trashed the business > centres of several major cities around the world earlier this year. This _should_ be easy, if we can get the point across that open source is nothing new. The courts are already familiar with open source in the form of science -- each generation builds upon the work of its predecessors because that work is available to them. Not only available to them as artifacts; one can, after all, still visit the Pyramids. Rather, it is available to them as the thoughts themselves, as _teachings_ with all of the plans, process sheets, calculations, physics, resource assignments, feed and shelter for the slaves, etc. Without that raw source material, we are left with decaying piles of stone and every generation must start over again. But more familiar than "open science" is something that we KNOW they are familiar with: open law. Ask a judge how the Law would progress if Courts only issued thumbs-up/thumbs-down decisions, never going behind the raw result to the principles behind it. THAT is the source code of our system of Justice, and "common computer science" can no more progress over time with "closed source" than the Law could with "closed opinions." Donald Knuth is our Blackstone, Larry Wall our Douglas; their finest work is lost to posterity if all we leave behind is executable artifacts. Is source code opaque to the proverbial man-on-the-street? OF COURSE the average man-on-the-street doesn't understand our terms of art, no more so than he understands a David Bois brief. -- | Engineers solve problems -- it's what we do. | | Do you want to be a problem? | | D. C. Sessions === dcs@lumbercartel.com | From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 19:35:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07061 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:35:42 -0500 Received: from mail.travel-net.com (root@mail.travel-net.com [204.92.71.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA07056 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:35:41 -0500 Received: from travel-net.com (trj106.travel-net.com [207.176.160.106]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA29669 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:37:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3A00B72A.22AC9FF6@travel-net.com> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:36:58 -0500 From: Dan Steinberg 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] Amici References: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.net> <3A00A35C.CE16BD33@travel-net.com> <3A00AAE2.F81820E8@mediaone.net> <3A00AF12.5AF69A0C@travel-net.com> <3A00B2BB.5619C2AA@mediaone.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 Sphere wrote: > Dan Steinberg wrote: > > > > Sphere wrote: > > > > > Dan Steinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > ummmmmmm not that for one second I am buying into that phrasing for the > > > > STATEMENT OF INTEREST para, but if it is written 'we are the enemy' surely it > > > > should be written whose enemy we are? The evil empire? Dennis Rodman? Kaplan? > > > > MPAA? > > > > > > > > error 603980111 - no opening quibble... > > > > > > > > > > Decidely not! Simply the enemy. We're gooks, kraut, > > > chinks. > > > > > > Obviously, we're the MPAA's and all other monopolists' > > > enemy -- but that does not mean we should qualify it. > > > > > > > > > > Ah ok.....but Im still not buying into it. And when I went to law school I was > > trained to assert that I was not the enemy.... > > > > That makes sense. You're a lawyer, not a radical > left-wing revolutionary with a bent to bring > down the system and take us back to the simple > days of our forefathers. > Well I actually have been called a radical left-wing revolutionary many times. But I digress. > > Seriously, I'm not saying that anybody is our > enemy -- quite the opposite. I'm saying that > other people have made us their enemy, for > whatever reasons. The label is a retorical > device, and specifying who's enemy would destroy > the effect. The effect of having the enemy > speak up. Also seriously, who does the word hate more than lawyers? Remeber the like from Shakespeare? this is a tradition spanning hundreds of years. I have a personal collection of over 400 lawyer jokes and Im probably only scratching the surface. In a sense lawyers are the enemy. They facilitate the current problem. I hear what you are saying. But I still dont buy it. In this context, making a political statement does potentially more harm than good. I would probably go along with the concept that better we say it than the defendants. But then I would still have to argue myself into a corner.... -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@vrx.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 19:46:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07247 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:46:19 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA07244 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:46:19 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA21951 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:47:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00B9B3.F68F2312@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:47:47 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici 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 Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Sphere wrote: > > > > > > > John Galt wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps the statements against us can be used in the "who we are" part as > > > a segueway (sp?) into the list of errors that Kaplan made. > > > > > > "Most of the membership of this group identifies with the Open Source > > > movement, which Kaplan inappropriately categorized as . This is the > > > first among many errors we feel that Kaplan made in his decision..." > > > > > > > We don't need heavy-handed characterization of Kaplan's motives. > > We can let his opinion speak for itself, and the simple fact > > that we are noting them speaks to our viewpoint. > > > > STATEMENT OF INTEREST > > > > The amici are engineers, programmers, scientists, lawyers, professors, > > students, and inventors, all of whom collaborate voluntarily on OpenLaw, > > an online public forum for discussing law. In simple terms, we are the > > enemy. > > > > Our ranks include Jon Johanson, Ole Craig, defendent in <> Tom Vogt, > > and many others. Most of the membership of this group identifies with > > the Open Source movement, which Kaplan categorized as . This > > characterization is one of the errors we feel that Kaplan has made in > > his opinion. > > > > Our ranks include Jon Johanson... Most of the memebrship strongly supports > the ideals of the open source movement-- which argues that programmers and > companies should -- as a conscious, informed decision-- release computer > programs in a manner that allows easy modification by end users. The most > preferred form is "source code", thus the term "open source". > > The open source paradigm allows ordinary citizens to participate in the > building of reliable, secure, and largely bug-free programs and operating > systems. So as to ensure that all programmers, regardless of their > financial status, the open source philosophy requires that code be > unencumbered by restrictive liscences or non-disclosure agreements. We > fear, that should the plaintiffs prevail, corporations may be tempted to > use provisions of the DMCA to arbitarily deny ceratin problem domains to > open source software. > > [applications barrier to entry, advantage of open source is lost if most > new applications require non-disclosure liscences, courts will be propping > up closed source paradigms, etc]. > > Jeremy Too many words. How about: Most of the Membership supports the ideals of the open source movement, releasing computer programs in a manner allowing easy modification by end users. Open source code cannot make use of restrictive licenses or non-disclosure argeements. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 19:48:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07322 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:48:27 -0500 Received: from mercury.clearway.com (c100.clearway.com [199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA07319 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:48:24 -0500 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:49:06 -0500 Message-ID: From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno transcript Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:49:06 -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 By the way, did anyone notice that the government conceded our "first sale is access" interpretation of the DMCA: Mr. Mollin: "A kind of similar example is in the Digital Millennium Act where for the first time Congress prohibited the decryption of encrypted things, which prevent people from playing it without paying for it. " --- I don't have a page cite, taking it from the html, but it is right at the beginning of his argument. He couldn't have said it any better! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 19:49:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07366 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:49:35 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA07363 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:49:32 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA23786 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:51:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00BA74.E6949F7F@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:51:00 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici References: <00110117345700.01813@frankenstein.lumbercartel.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 like. Maybe you could sell this to some Amicus... "D. C. Sessions" wrote: > > On Wed, 01 Nov 2000, Steve Hosgood wrote: > > > Doing that would make it impossible to win the hearts and minds of the people > > or the judges. We're fighting an uphill battle that we're sure to lose > > for stupid reasons if we do it that way. > > > > Remember, this battle is twofold - we're only really dealing with one aspect > > right now, i.e compiling carefully argued lists of why we believe the lower > > court made mistakes and fell foul of quite a few prior judgements and maybe > > even the U.S constitution itself. > > > > The other battle however is more subtle, and concerns getting a fair > > hearing out of the judge(s) and the newspapers. Chances are that the judge > > or judges are somewhat older than most of the OSS community, and will be > > used to thinking with the value-system of the previous generation. This > > of course is the value-system still championed by the plaintiffs who will > > be seeking to maximise the benefit of appearing to be "the good guys" from > > the outset. They will also of course jump at *any* chance of equating the > > OSS community with those anti-WTO demonstrators who trashed the business > > centres of several major cities around the world earlier this year. > > This _should_ be easy, if we can get the point across that open source is > nothing new. The courts are already familiar with open source in the form of > science -- each generation builds upon the work of its predecessors because > that work is available to them. Not only available to them as artifacts; one can, > after all, still visit the Pyramids. Rather, it is available to them as the thoughts > themselves, as _teachings_ with all of the plans, process sheets, calculations, > physics, resource assignments, feed and shelter for the slaves, etc. > > Without that raw source material, we are left with decaying piles of stone and > every generation must start over again. > > But more familiar than "open science" is something that we KNOW they are > familiar with: open law. Ask a judge how the Law would progress if Courts > only issued thumbs-up/thumbs-down decisions, never going behind the raw > result to the principles behind it. THAT is the source code of our system of > Justice, and "common computer science" can no more progress over time > with "closed source" than the Law could with "closed opinions." Donald > Knuth is our Blackstone, Larry Wall our Douglas; their finest work is lost to > posterity if all we leave behind is executable artifacts. > > Is source code opaque to the proverbial man-on-the-street? OF COURSE > the average man-on-the-street doesn't understand our terms of art, no more > so than he understands a David Bois brief. > > -- > | Engineers solve problems -- it's what we do. | > | Do you want to be a problem? | > | D. C. Sessions === dcs@lumbercartel.com | -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 20:05:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA07676 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 20:05:51 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA07666 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 20:05:50 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA02756 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 20:07:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00BE43.5F985DDA@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 20:07:15 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici References: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.net> <3A00A35C.CE16BD33@travel-net.com> <3A00AAE2.F81820E8@mediaone.net> <3A00AF12.5AF69A0C@travel-net.com> <3A00B2BB.5619C2AA@mediaone.net> <3A00B72A.22AC9FF6@travel-net.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 Dan Steinberg wrote: > > Sphere wrote: > > > Dan Steinberg wrote: > > > > > > Sphere wrote: > > > > > > > Dan Steinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ummmmmmm not that for one second I am buying into that phrasing for the > > > > > STATEMENT OF INTEREST para, but if it is written 'we are the enemy' surely it > > > > > should be written whose enemy we are? The evil empire? Dennis Rodman? Kaplan? > > > > > MPAA? > > > > > > > > > > error 603980111 - no opening quibble... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Decidely not! Simply the enemy. We're gooks, kraut, > > > > chinks. > > > > > > > > Obviously, we're the MPAA's and all other monopolists' > > > > enemy -- but that does not mean we should qualify it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah ok.....but Im still not buying into it. And when I went to law school I was > > > trained to assert that I was not the enemy.... > > > > > > > That makes sense. You're a lawyer, not a radical > > left-wing revolutionary with a bent to bring > > down the system and take us back to the simple > > days of our forefathers. > > > > Well I actually have been called a radical left-wing revolutionary many times. But I > digress. > > > > > Seriously, I'm not saying that anybody is our > > enemy -- quite the opposite. I'm saying that > > other people have made us their enemy, for > > whatever reasons. The label is a retorical > > device, and specifying who's enemy would destroy > > the effect. The effect of having the enemy > > speak up. > > Also seriously, who does the word hate more than lawyers? Remeber the like from > Shakespeare? this is a tradition spanning hundreds of years. I have a personal > collection of over 400 lawyer jokes and Im probably only scratching the surface. In a > sense lawyers are the enemy. They facilitate the current problem. > > I hear what you are saying. But I still dont buy it. In this context, making a > political statement does potentially more harm than good. I would probably go along with > the concept that better we say it than the defendants. But then I would still have to > argue myself into a corner.... Actually, I don't want to make a political statement. It would take the entirety of a Debian release to express the politcal platform of the Open Source Movement. What I want to do is make a statement about the Open Source political statement. I want it recognized that DeCSS is by nature a part of the Open Source platform. I won't say that it is impossible to openly write software which is beyond the pale of First Amendment protection -- but it is extremely difficult to do so. Unlike proprietary software, open source is by nature public discourse. For all those who want to keep software closed, and hidden from public interrogation, we are the enemy. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 20:58:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA08110 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 20:58:19 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA08107 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 20:58:18 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id UAA22545 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 20:59:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id UAA25847; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 20:59:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 20:59:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011020159.UAA25847@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici In-Reply-To: <00110117345700.01813@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> References: <00110117345700.01813@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu D. C. Sessions writes: > This _should_ be easy, if we can get the point across that open > source is nothing new. The courts are already familiar with open > source in the form of science -- each generation builds upon the > work of its predecessors because that work is available to them. > Not only available to them as artifacts; one can, after all, still > visit the Pyramids. Rather, it is available to them as the > thoughts themselves, as _teachings_ with all of the plans, process > sheets, calculations, physics, resource assignments, feed and > shelter for the slaves, etc. Well, I'm not sure that the courts are familiar with science in any form. But they are very unlikely to see the analogy here. What you're discussing is the development of scientific *theory*; the development of engineering *practice*, by contrast, has been bottled up in patents since the beginning of the republic. BTW, it wasn't too long ago that even highly qualified engineers in this field thought that software development outside some kind of intellectual property structure was some kind of fairy tale --- I don't think of myself as particularly venerable, but I can't be the only person who remembers the scathing derision that greeted Stallman's announcement of the FSF, not from suits, but from professional engineers. If they (we) didn't get it, at the time, I think it's a bit much to expect the courts to get it in a flash. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 21:23:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA09102 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 21:23:39 -0500 Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA09098 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 21:23:38 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa164.pool013.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.84.164]) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA01229 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:25:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001101182251.00aae5a0@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:24:37 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici In-Reply-To: <3A00B72A.22AC9FF6@travel-net.com> References: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.net> <3A00A35C.CE16BD33@travel-net.com> <3A00AAE2.F81820E8@mediaone.net> <3A00AF12.5AF69A0C@travel-net.com> <3A00B2BB.5619C2AA@mediaone.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 07:36 PM 11/1/2000 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote: >Also seriously, who does the word hate more than lawyers? 1. Dentists 2. Used car salesmen 3. Insurance salesmen 4. ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 21:32:49 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls20.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA28219 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 21:34:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00D2AA.7626EFFD@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 21:34:18 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici References: <00110117345700.01813@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <200011020159.UAA25847@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > > D. C. Sessions writes: > > This _should_ be easy, if we can get the point across that open > > source is nothing new. The courts are already familiar with open > > source in the form of science -- each generation builds upon the > > work of its predecessors because that work is available to them. > > Not only available to them as artifacts; one can, after all, still > > visit the Pyramids. Rather, it is available to them as the > > thoughts themselves, as _teachings_ with all of the plans, process > > sheets, calculations, physics, resource assignments, feed and > > shelter for the slaves, etc. > > Well, I'm not sure that the courts are familiar with science in any > form. But they are very unlikely to see the analogy here. What > you're discussing is the development of scientific *theory*; the > development of engineering *practice*, by contrast, has been bottled > up in patents since the beginning of the republic. > > BTW, it wasn't too long ago that even highly qualified engineers in > this field thought that software development outside some kind of > intellectual property structure was some kind of fairy tale --- I > don't think of myself as particularly venerable, but I can't be the > only person who remembers the scathing derision that greeted > Stallman's announcement of the FSF, not from suits, but from > professional engineers. > > If they (we) didn't get it, at the time, I think it's a bit much to > expect the courts to get it in a flash. > > rst Well... I've never cared much for emacs myself, but I think that at MIT the message got through to at least some of us rather easily. When I started working, no one would think of taking an OS for the PDP-11 without source as part of the package. Taking a PDP-11 without an OS was ok. I worked with RSX-11M+ until 1997, and from day zero I always had the OS source available. Even had to maintain a few patches to the TTY driver. As far as I'm concerned the Open Source movement is fighting a rear guard action against the marauding forces of the Evil Empire -- not proposing something new. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 22:03:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA09592 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:03:36 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA09588 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:03:23 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA01206 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:12:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:12:49 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici Message-ID: <20001101221249.A1167@eldritchpress.org> References: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu on Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 07:06:17PM -0500 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 07:06:17PM -0500, Jeremy A Erwin wrote: > On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Sphere wrote: > > John Galt wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps the statements against us can be used in the "who we are" part as > > > a segueway (sp?) into the list of errors that Kaplan made. > > > > > > "Most of the membership of this group identifies with the Open Source > > > movement, which Kaplan inappropriately categorized as . This is the > > > first among many errors we feel that Kaplan made in his decision..." > > > > Our ranks include Jon Johanson... Most of the memebrship strongly supports > the ideals of the open source movement-- which argues that programmers and > companies should -- as a conscious, informed decision-- release computer > programs in a manner that allows easy modification by end users. The most > preferred form is "source code", thus the term "open source". > > The open source paradigm allows ordinary citizens to participate in the > building of reliable, secure, and largely bug-free programs and operating > systems. So as to ensure that all programmers, regardless of their > financial status, the open source philosophy requires that code be > unencumbered by restrictive liscences or non-disclosure agreements. We > fear, that should the plaintiffs prevail, corporations may be tempted to > use provisions of the DMCA to arbitarily deny ceratin problem domains to > open source software. > > [applications barrier to entry, advantage of open source is lost if most > new applications require non-disclosure liscences, courts will be propping > up closed source paradigms, etc]. I hate to say this. I have tolerated too many of RMS's rants on the subject to want to add another. But I have to note that Judge Kaplan's slight was directed toward "free software" folks who think everything ought to be free (as in free beer). So talking about "open source" does not quite meet the objective we must set here. We have to point out that "Free Software" means that software must be free in the sense of "free speech" and not necessarily "free beer"--that both users and programmers--and publishers--get more out of software that is open and modifiable (which implies not necessarily in "source code") and that bears a license that states it must be this way, nobody can take it away from you and tell you it is "theirs." Thus, LiViD (and DeCSS) bear GNU's General Public License, they are copyrighted in their own right, but they are as a consequence always free to modify and use. Whereas, no DVD CCA license can ever allow their software to be freely modified, even if it is released for Linux. Thus, releasing "free software" is not an attempt to steal anything from another copyright owner, it only frees up the software for use, as for example on the computer that one happens to own. I don't mind the references to "open source." But I think that "free software" can be explained and used instead--proudly. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 22:12:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA09748 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:12:43 -0500 Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA09745 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:12:42 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA27805 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:14:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00DC01.5A4E2192@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 22:14:09 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici References: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.net> <20001101221249.A1167@eldritchpress.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 Eric Eldred wrote: ... > > I hate to say this. I have tolerated too many of RMS's rants on the > subject to want to add another. But I have to note that Judge Kaplan's > slight was directed toward "free software" folks who think everything > ought to be free (as in free beer). So talking about "open source" > does not quite meet the objective we must set here. We have to point > out that "Free Software" means that software must be free in the sense > of "free speech" and not necessarily "free beer"--that both users and > programmers--and publishers--get more out of software that is open and > modifiable (which implies not necessarily in "source code") and that > bears a license that states it must be this way, nobody can take it > away from you and tell you it is "theirs." Thus, LiViD (and DeCSS) > bear GNU's General Public License, they are copyrighted in their own > right, but they are as a consequence always free to modify and use. > Whereas, no DVD CCA license can ever allow their software to be > freely modified, even if it is released for Linux. Thus, releasing > "free software" is not an attempt to steal anything from another > copyright owner, it only frees up the software for use, as for > example on the computer that one happens to own. > > I don't mind the references to "open source." But I think that "free > software" can be explained and used instead--proudly. "Free Software" is not a short course in economics. ;) -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 22:16:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA09808 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:16:18 -0500 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 WAA09805 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:16:17 -0500 Received: from 216-164-128-90.s90.tnt1.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([216.164.128.90]) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 13rAsq-0001LU-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 01 Nov 2000 22:17:46 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A00BE43.5F985DDA@mediaone.net> References: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.net> <3A00A35C.CE16BD33@travel-net.com> <3A00AAE2.F81820E8@mediaone.net> <3A00AF12.5AF69A0C@travel-net.com> <3A00B2BB.5619C2AA@mediaone.net> <3A00B72A.22AC9FF6@travel-net.com> <3A00BE43.5F985DDA@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:15:50 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Jeremy Erwin Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici 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 >Actually, I don't want to make a political statement. It would >take the entirety of a Debian release to express the politcal >platform of the Open Source Movement. > >What I want to do is make a statement about the Open Source >political statement. I want it recognized that DeCSS is >by nature a part of the Open Source platform. I won't say >that it is impossible to openly write software which is >beyond the pale of First Amendment protection -- but it >is extremely difficult to do so. Unlike proprietary software, >open source is by nature public discourse. For all those >who want to keep software closed, and hidden from public >interrogation, we are the enemy. > One disadvantage of pushing the "enemy" route is that the plaintiffs in this case have tried to spread lies and propaganda about open source-- namely that we are "pirates", whose goal is to liberate technology, and "steal" intellectual property. Many advocates of open source disdain piracy-- because the choice to release software under a free license should be left to the programmer. Yes, Open Source Programming is public discourse. Anybody can get access to the source-- without spending money, and without signing NDAs. Kaplan's suggestions that some cryptoanalysis research is legitimate, while other research may properly be banned under 1201 et seq. is, as at least one person on this list noted, tantamount to the creation of nobility. Indeed, to grant corporations and individuals capable of posting large bonds and paying not inconsiderable licence fees is to discriminate on the basis of financial wealth, and not (properly) on their ability to program. I believe the DMCA has been cited by the creator of the CueCat as one reason why "unauthorized" persons should not be allowed to distribute Linux drivers for the device. If the MPAA wins, we'll see a lot more companies scheming to hide various trivialities behind childish codes-- and new devices will become impossible to use with open source operating systems. The antithesis of open source is not closed source. It's cryptographically signed closed source-- similar to the "trusted" drivers that Microsoft has been promoting to media companies. Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 22:39:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA10046 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:39:06 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA10039 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:39:04 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 04:26:15 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:19:27 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:19:27 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici Message-ID: <20001102051927.B12220@lemuria.org> References: <20001101170459.29828.qmail@web6405.mail.yahoo.com> <3A00A671.F514F758@mediaone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A00A671.F514F758@mediaone.net>; from sphere1952@mediaone.net on Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 06:25:37PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sphere wrote: > The issue is purely the question "is DeCSS > commercial speech to which intermediate > scrutiny can be applied, or political speech > for which strict scrutiny must be used?" don't forget that DeCSS is also *technological* speech, a progress in the sciences and a copyrighted work in itself - the very kind of stuff that congress is empowered by the constitution to *further* and *protect*. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 1 22:39:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA10040 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:39:04 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA10035 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:39:02 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 04:26:15 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:17:16 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:17:16 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici Message-ID: <20001102051715.A12220@lemuria.org> References: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.net> <3A00A35C.CE16BD33@travel-net.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A00A35C.CE16BD33@travel-net.com>; from dstein@travel-net.com on Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 06:12:28PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dan Steinberg wrote: > ummmmmmm not that for one second I am buying into that phrasing for the > STATEMENT OF INTEREST para, but if it is written 'we are the enemy' surely it > should be written whose enemy we are? The evil empire? Dennis Rodman? Kaplan? > MPAA? I believe the "we are the enemy" is a nice catchphrase, but inapropriate and misleading. how about: "in short, we are the people the plaintiffs label as malicious and evil, to which judge kaplan agrees by saying . in fact, however, we are also the people whose kind has built the internet. (add references)" -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 00:22:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA11139 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 00:22:21 -0500 Received: from mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.28]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA11136 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 00:22:18 -0500 Received: from swbell.net ([64.216.210.180]) by mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0G3D001SUTIFJD@mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:20:39 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 23:20:16 -0600 From: Jolley Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <3A00F990.96DAD843@swbell.net> Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-SBI-NC472 (Win98; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.net> <3A00A35C.CE16BD33@travel-net.com> <3A00AAE2.F81820E8@mediaone.net> <3A00AF12.5AF69A0C@travel-net.com> <3A00B2BB.5619C2AA@mediaone.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sphere wrote: > > Dan Steinberg wrote: > > > > Sphere wrote: > > > > > Dan Steinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > ummmmmmm not that for one second I am buying into that phrasing for the > > > > STATEMENT OF INTEREST para, but if it is written 'we are the enemy' surely it > > > > should be written whose enemy we are? The evil empire? Dennis Rodman? Kaplan? > > > > MPAA? > > > > > > > > error 603980111 - no opening quibble... > > > > > > > > > > Decidely not! Simply the enemy. We're gooks, kraut, > > > chinks. > > > > > > Obviously, we're the MPAA's and all other monopolists' > > > enemy -- but that does not mean we should qualify it. > > > > > > > > > > Ah ok.....but Im still not buying into it. And when I went to law school I was > > trained to assert that I was not the enemy.... > > > > That makes sense. You're a lawyer, not a radical > left-wing revolutionary with a bent to bring > down the system and take us back to the simple > days of our forefathers. > > Seriously, I'm not saying that anybody is our > enemy -- quite the opposite. I'm saying that > other people have made us their enemy, for > whatever reasons. The label is a retorical > device, and specifying who's enemy would destroy > the effect. The effect of having the enemy > speak up. > I think I'll put my two cents in before this thread really gets out of control. It seems that there is some uncertainty as to what we are. I don't think talking about "enemy" or radical political points of view is the correct approach. This is how I see what we are: 1. We are a Friend of the Court - amicus curiae. The court needs our friendship more than ever to help guide them through the technical and legal issues. 2. We are visionary statesmen of public interest. Something no other amicus brief can say. We speak the truth (well, at least what's on our minds) even if it hurts the interests of the plaintiffs. We can show how the infinitely more important interests of the public are at stake and give the court the motivation, reasons, and ideas to protect those interests. 3. We represent a wide range of backgrounds and interests. One of which that has been heavily mentioned on this thread is a strong interest in the Open Source movement. There are other interests as well and at least as relevant. Other reasons why I'm participating on dvd-discuss is the idea of fair use; my rights when I purchase a DVD - first sale; I don't like the MPAA, DVD CCA, and consumer electronic manufacturers trust; the court's opinion does not follow the legislative intent of the DMCA; and, the DMCA is poorly written legislation. I couldn't care less that Kaplan may have a low opinion or doesn't understand the open source movement. I view it as a red herring that is drawing attention away from the more important issues of this case. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 06:32:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA14281 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:32:05 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA14278 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:32:03 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA20222 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:33:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A01510D.593A822@mediaone.net> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 06:33:33 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici References: <20001101170459.29828.qmail@web6405.mail.yahoo.com> <3A00A671.F514F758@mediaone.net> <20001102051927.B12220@lemuria.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 Tom Vogt wrote: > > Sphere wrote: > > The issue is purely the question "is DeCSS > > commercial speech to which intermediate > > scrutiny can be applied, or political speech > > for which strict scrutiny must be used?" > > don't forget that DeCSS is also *technological* speech, a progress in the > sciences and a copyrighted work in itself - the very kind of stuff that > congress is empowered by the constitution to *further* and *protect*. > Sure, but technological speech is not the speech congress is _required_ to protect. It's the speech of public discourse for which protection is mandated. Technologically, CSS and DeCSS are the same. Where they differ is that CSS is hidden speech, DeCSS is public speech. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 06:37:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA14409 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:37:50 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA14406 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:37:49 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA21595 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:39:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A015267.3B7118C6@mediaone.net> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 06:39:19 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici References: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.net> <3A00A35C.CE16BD33@travel-net.com> <3A00AAE2.F81820E8@mediaone.net> <3A00AF12.5AF69A0C@travel-net.com> <3A00B2BB.5619C2AA@mediaone.net> <3A00F990.96DAD843@swbell.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 Jolley wrote: ... > > I couldn't care less that Kaplan may have a low opinion or doesn't > understand the open source movement. I view it as a red herring that > is drawing attention away from the more important issues of this > case. I think there's only one issue in this case, one group of people is trying to prevent other people from saying and seeing what they want. Anything else brought up is some aspect of this. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 07:19:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA14696 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:19:27 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA14693 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:19:25 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13rJMU-0006Ss-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:20:54 +0100 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:20:54 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: DMCA Final Rule 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 could tell you, but then I would have to kill you. ( Alternatively face DMCA charges :-) frank On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > I haven't seen anything on the data formats on DVDs. Do you have a > reference? I'd like to know what the function of the first 128bit block is > and why 84-88 are so special. 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 Nov 2 08:17:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA15017 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:17:30 -0500 Received: from mason2.gmu.edu (mason2.gmu.edu [129.174.1.11]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA15014 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:17:25 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by mason2.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA15362 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:18:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:18:55 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin X-Sender: jerwin@mason2.gmu.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici In-Reply-To: <3A015267.3B7118C6@mediaone.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, 2 Nov 2000, Sphere wrote: > > > Jolley wrote: > ... > > > > I couldn't care less that Kaplan may have a low opinion or doesn't > > understand the open source movement. I view it as a red herring that > > is drawing attention away from the more important issues of this > > case. > > I think there's only one issue in this case, one group > of people is trying to prevent other people from saying > and seeing what they want. > > Anything else brought up is some aspect of this. > One route that may prove fruitful is to couch much of the "open source movement" in terms of academic freedom. The open source movement is derived from the Free Software philosophy-- which Stallman developed in response to restrictive licensing practices. The FSF wanted to protect the ideals of free inquiry that then existed in computer science departments. Persons have suggested restricting encryption research to memebers of accredited academic.institutions-- certified, liscence, and bonded researchers, if you will. But the role of a university is not to gain a monopoly on the expansion of intellectual property, but rather to teach its students how to engage in meaningful intellectual inquiry. By requiring that source be included, the free software movement is neccesitating a didactic element to free software. (How many of you have learned something through working on free software?) just some thoughts Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 09:27:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA18008 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:27:09 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA18004 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:27:06 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id JAA06289 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:28:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id JAA29852; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:28:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:28:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011021428.JAA29852@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici In-Reply-To: References: <3A00A0FF.4D7D21CA@mediaone.net> <3A00A35C.CE16BD33@travel-net.com> <3A00AAE2.F81820E8@mediaone.net> <3A00AF12.5AF69A0C@travel-net.com> <3A00B2BB.5619C2AA@mediaone.net> <3A00B72A.22AC9FF6@travel-net.com> <3A00BE43.5F985DDA@mediaone.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jeremy Erwin writes: > One disadvantage of pushing the "enemy" route is that the plaintiffs > in this case have tried to spread lies and propaganda about open > source-- namely that we are "pirates", whose goal is to liberate > technology, and "steal" intellectual property. Many advocates of open > source disdain piracy-- because the choice to release software under > a free license should be left to the programmer. Agreed. Remember, Kaplan put that "members of a movement" stuff in his opinion with the deliberate intent of stigmatizing the defendants and harming their interests at the appellate level. And people here reacted, at the time, by calling it slander. Likewise when the plaintiffs say this kind of thing --- as they do frequently --- that is their intent. To stigmatize us. If they could write a brief for us, "We are the enemy" is certainly how it would start. I'm shocked that we're even considering it. And as to the Courts protecting DeCSS as the speech of wide-eyed radicals, nonsense. The courts may protect the speech of wild-eyed radicals, but they do *not* rule to advance their causes, and they would see us as asking for the latter and not the former --- and follow Kaplan's logic to rule that DeCSS is not protected speech. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 10:19:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA18340 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:19:09 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA18334 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:19:08 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:12:11 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:12:45 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:12:45 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici Message-ID: <20001102171245.B14057@lemuria.org> References: <3A015267.3B7118C6@mediaone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu on Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 08:18:55AM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jeremy A Erwin wrote: > Persons have suggested restricting encryption research to memebers of > accredited academic.institutions-- certified, liscence, and bonded > researchers, if you will. But the role of a university is not to gain > a monopoly on the expansion of intellectual property, but rather to > teach its students how to engage in meaningful intellectual inquiry. as a matter of fact, one of the more important recent innovations in cryptography - the diffie-hellmann key exchange - was created (in part) by an amateur (Whitfield Diffie). -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 10:19:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA18333 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:19:08 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA18329 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:19:06 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:12:11 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:09:33 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:09:33 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici Message-ID: <20001102170932.A14057@lemuria.org> References: <20001101170459.29828.qmail@web6405.mail.yahoo.com> <3A00A671.F514F758@mediaone.net> <20001102051927.B12220@lemuria.org> <3A01510D.593A822@mediaone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A01510D.593A822@mediaone.net>; from sphere1952@mediaone.net on Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 06:33:33AM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sphere wrote: > Sure, but technological speech is not the > speech congress is _required_ to protect. > It's the speech of public discourse for which > protection is mandated. and technology is *not* a public discourse? weird, I thought our modern society is largely driven by technology... > Technologically, CSS and DeCSS are the same. > Where they differ is that CSS is hidden > speech, DeCSS is public speech. they are most definitely *not* the same, neither in technology nor elsewhere. for example, while CSS is a louse encryption that violates pretty much everything a good cryptographer knows (starting with the #1 rule: don't create an in-house cipher and believe it's any good), DeCSS is a fine piece of reverse-engineering. and your point falls even short of the truth. not only is CSS hidden, it also is part of a system (the CSS license scheme) that requires further hidings. on the other hand, DeCSS is not only public, it also encourages (through the GNU Public License) further publication and discussion. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 10:53:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA18722 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:53:28 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA18719 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:53:25 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11674; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:54:54 GMT Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:54:54 GMT Subject: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20001102170932.A14057@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt wrote: > Sphere wrote: > > Technologically, CSS and DeCSS are the same. > > they are most definitely *not* the same, neither in technology nor > elsewhere. for example, while CSS is a louse encryption that violates > pretty much everything a good cryptographer knows (starting with the #1 > rule: don't create an in-house cipher and believe it's any good), DeCSS is > a fine piece of reverse-engineering. > Er - Tom, you're starting a fight over nothing here! Unless I misread Sphere, he's arguing (fair enough, surely?) that CSS and DeCSS are *functionally* identical. No-one's saying that the development of DeCSS won't go down in history as one of the all-time hacks. It will. No doubt of that! Sphere makes a point that might be developed into a useful in-court demo (if such things are permitted as part of illustrating a point). Defence might set up two computer systems on a table. One runs windoze, and has an off- the shelf DVD player installed. The other runs linux and has a copy of the LiViD player installed. The defendant puts a legally-bought DVD into the windoze machine's drive, presses a few button and points out that he/she is now "legally" watching a DVD on screen. Eject the disk, move over to the linux machine. Repeat, and point out that now (according to the plaintiff's claims) he/she is now *illegally* watching that same DVD. Challenge the judge(s) to explain why this should be so, given that no stolen goods are involved. ( Ideally, set up the windoze and linux machines to use the exact same physical hardware in both cases. That helps prevent the plaintiffs from trying to confuse the court, and makes it more clear to the court that the only difference is the authorship of the software being used. I wouldn't suggest using a single dual-boot machine - it's a sufficiently unusual setup that it might distract the court from the point. ) -- Steve | Steve's law of House Rewiring: steve@equiinet.co.uk | "No matter how many power sockets Phone: +44 1792 540009 | you fit in a room, you will run Fax: +44 1792 295811 | out within the first week of use --------------------------------------------+ even if you took Steve's law of http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | House Rewiring into account" From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 13:00:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA19532 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:00:49 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f113.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.113]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19529 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:00:47 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:01:47 -0800 Received: from 128.244.34.133 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 18:01:47 GMT X-Originating-IP: [128.244.34.133] From: "Harold Eaton" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 13:01:47 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2000 18:01:47.0934 (UTC) FILETIME=[F7F97BE0:01C044F6] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Robert S. Thau wrote: >Well, I'm not sure that the courts are familiar with science in any >form. But they are very unlikely to see the analogy here. What >you're discussing is the development of scientific *theory*; the >development of engineering *practice*, by contrast, has been bottled >up in patents since the beginning of the republic. While patents do "bottle up" technology, they don't hide it too well. In point of fact, obtaining a patent is supposed to require complete disclosure of the technology being patented, and this makes the theory and practice *knowledge* available to all as soon as the patent issues. This allows for someone else to immediately make improvements (and possibly patent those for themselves). Copyrighting software without publishing it is *nothing* like the patent process as far as advancement of the useful arts is concerned. Of course many companies don't like the disclosure aspects to the patent laws, and so avoid providing the real details of how they do what they do, and the patent office often issues anyway. But this is not the way patents are supposed to work. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 13:20:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA19776 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:20:31 -0500 Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19773 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:20:29 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa119.pool009.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.80.119]) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA24724 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:21:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001102101709.00a907d0@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 10:22:00 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA Sponsor Critical 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 A press release today from Congressman Rick Boucher. He is not pleased. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Sharon Ringley November 2, 2000 (202) 225-3861 Statement of Congressman Rick Boucher "PAY-PER-USE" SOCIETY ONE STEP CLOSER I regret the decision of the Librarian of Congress, acting upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, to reject the recommendations of the Administration, concerned Members of Congress, universities and libraries in announcing a decision that does not protect traditional fair use rights. This disappointing decision has moved our Nation one step closer to a "pay-per-use" society that threatens to advance the narrow interests of copyright owners over the broader public interest of information consumers. In crafting section 1201(a)(1) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Congress sought to preserve the principle of "fair use" that has served our Nation so well for more than a century. Unfortunately, based on the advice of the Register of Copyrights, the Librarian of Congress today announced his decision to limit the ability of ordinary consumers in most cases to circumvent electronic security measures for the purpose of exercising their non-infringing fair use rights. Consequently, any person who circumvents a technological protection measure to gain access to information to which he has a fair use right will be guilty of a crime. I was heartened recently when the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the U.S. Department of Commerce, speaking for the Administration, so forcefully articulated the importance of preserving fair use principles in the 21st century. NTIA made useful recommendations to the Register of Copyrights for implementing section 1201(a)(1) in a manner which would have protected fair use rights. For a moment, it appeared that the rulemaking might advance the interests of information consumers. Those hopes have now been dashed. As NTIA recognized in its letter, one of the foremost concerns reflected in the Congressional report upon passage of the DMCA was that changes in the law could chill the exercise of consumers' traditional "fair use" rights, and move us all toward a "pay-per-use" society. Congress recognized that some limits had to be placed on the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA to ensure that librarians, educators, the scientific community, and other information consumers could continue to gain legitimate access to a variety of works likely to be protected through the use of technological measures. Section 1201(a)(1) was, therefore, included to exempt from the prohibition on circumvention "persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be . . . adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make non-infringing uses of that particular class of works ..." The Librarian was charged by the statute with defining the classes of works likely to be at risk. Under this grant of authority, it should have been possible to exempt, for example, copies of works purchased by universities and libraries when their students or patrons subsequently seek to make non-infringing fair use of those works. Unfortunately, the announced exceptions to the rule are so narrow as to be practically meaningless. Fair use is not protected. There is little doubt that the 107th Congress will consider proposed revisions to the DMCA. Given the importance of fair use to society as a whole, my hope is that Congress will re-calibrate the DMCA to balance more evenly the interests of copyright owners and information consumers. With today's failure of the Library of Congress to protect the public's fair use rights, Congress in its next session should act to prevent the creation of a "pay per use" society, in which what is available today on the library shelf for free is available in the future only upon payment of a fee for each use. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com 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 Nov 2 14:10:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA20296 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:10:11 -0500 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 OAA20292 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:10:06 -0500 Message-ID: <20001102191106.15181.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web510.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 11:11:06 PST Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 11:11:06 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA Sponsor Critical 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 On the distant horizen, a small patch of blue appears in an otherwise black and stormy sky. Meanwhile, unaffected by this glimmer of hope, the storm presses on, the wind howls, and the lightning crashes down. --- "James S. Tyre" wrote: > A press release today from Congressman Rick Boucher. He is not > pleased. > Statement of Congressman Rick Boucher "Fair use is not protected. There is little doubt that the 107th Congress will consider proposed revisions to the DMCA. Given the importance of fair use to society as a whole, my hope is that Congress will re-calibrate the DMCA to balance more evenly the interests of copyright owners and information consumers." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? >From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. http://experts.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 17:56:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA22755 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:56:33 -0500 Received: from chmls20.mediaone.net (chmls20.mediaone.net [24.147.1.156]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA22752 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:56:32 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls20.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07639 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:58:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A01F17C.457E6674@mediaone.net> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 17:58:04 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA Sponsor Critical References: <20001102191106.15181.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 That glimmer's just the eye of the hurricane. The other eye-wall will follow close behind. We don't win unless the matter is taken out of the legislature's hands with a clear no-no from mamma court. Bryan Taylor wrote: > > On the distant horizen, a small patch of blue appears in an otherwise > black and stormy sky. Meanwhile, unaffected by this glimmer of hope, > the storm presses on, the wind howls, and the lightning crashes down. > > --- "James S. Tyre" wrote: > > A press release today from Congressman Rick Boucher. He is not > > pleased. > > > Statement of Congressman Rick Boucher > > "Fair use is not protected. There is little doubt that the 107th > Congress will consider proposed revisions to the DMCA. Given the > importance of fair use to society as a whole, my hope is that Congress > will re-calibrate the DMCA to balance more evenly the interests of > copyright owners and information consumers." > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > >From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. > http://experts.yahoo.com/ -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 18:16:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA22952 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:16:00 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA22949 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:15:59 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA19362 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:17:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A01F607.9271B1D8@mediaone.net> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 18:17:27 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) 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 Steve Hosgood wrote: > > Tom Vogt wrote: > > Sphere wrote: > > > Technologically, CSS and DeCSS are the same. > > > > they are most definitely *not* the same, neither in technology nor > > elsewhere. for example, while CSS is a louse encryption that violates > > pretty much everything a good cryptographer knows (starting with the #1 > > rule: don't create an in-house cipher and believe it's any good), DeCSS is > > a fine piece of reverse-engineering. > > > > Er - Tom, you're starting a fight over nothing here! Unless I misread > Sphere, he's arguing (fair enough, surely?) that CSS and DeCSS are > *functionally* identical. No-one's saying that the development of DeCSS > won't go down in history as one of the all-time hacks. It will. No doubt > of that! I wasn't being nearly so specific, though you are right that they are functionally identical, and this fact can be used to illustrate the point -- as you have below. > Sphere makes a point that might be developed into a useful in-court demo (if > such things are permitted as part of illustrating a point). Defence might > set up two computer systems on a table. One runs windoze, and has an off- > the shelf DVD player installed. The other runs linux and has a copy of > the LiViD player installed. The defendant puts a legally-bought DVD into > the windoze machine's drive, presses a few button and points out that > he/she is now "legally" watching a DVD on screen. > > Eject the disk, move over to the linux machine. Repeat, and point out that > now (according to the plaintiff's claims) he/she is now *illegally* watching > that same DVD. > > Challenge the judge(s) to explain why this should be so, given that no > stolen goods are involved. > > ( Ideally, set up the windoze and linux machines to use the exact same > physical hardware in both cases. That helps prevent the plaintiffs from > trying to confuse the court, and makes it more clear to the court that the > only difference is the authorship of the software being used. I wouldn't > suggest using a single dual-boot machine - it's a sufficiently unusual setup > that it might distract the court from the point. ) I was more referring to the fact that it isn't technology that makes a social distinction between CSS and DeCSS. (Tom's right that CSS is poor technology...) The social difference between the two is that CSS is obscured, hidden, speech being used to control other people; while DeCSS is visible, public, speech being used to empower people. Even if CSS was the best designed piece of software so far written, it does not deserve the same sort of legal protection DeCSS deserves -- at least not so long as its' source is hidden from public inspection. CSS is the speech of conspirators whispering in a darkened room. DeCSS is the speech of orators standing in an open park. Certainly, the conspiratorial speech deserves protection, but its' very secrecy must draw into question the motives of the speakers. For speech openly spoken to all comers in the park there is no such question of motive. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 18:40:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA23175 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:40:16 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA23172 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:40:16 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id SAA04516 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:41:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id SAA05284; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:41:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:41:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011022341.SAA05284@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Harold Eaton writes: > Robert S. Thau wrote: > > >Well, I'm not sure that the courts are familiar with science in any > >form. But they are very unlikely to see the analogy here. What > >you're discussing is the development of scientific *theory*; the > >development of engineering *practice*, by contrast, has been bottled > >up in patents since the beginning of the republic. > > While patents do "bottle up" technology, they don't hide it too well. > In point of fact, obtaining a patent is supposed to require complete > disclosure of the technology being patented, and this makes the theory > and practice *knowledge* available to all as soon as the patent issues. But they do still "bottle up" the technology in the sense that it can't be used or deployed without permission of the patent holder --- which is clearly the ultimate goal of the studios wrt DVDs and CSS. It's also fair to point out that they are using concealment as another means toward that end (which is actually the basis of the California lawsuit). But still, I think they'd be happy with a perpetual patent-like monopoly, if that's all they get out of the current legal action --- and I'm sure that most people here wouldn't, due to the crippling effects on fair use, and other factors. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 19:03:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA23496 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 19:03:38 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA23493 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 19:03:36 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA10172 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 19:05:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A020133.89273EC5@mediaone.net> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 19:05:07 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici References: <200011022341.SAA05284@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > > Harold Eaton writes: > > Robert S. Thau wrote: > > > > >Well, I'm not sure that the courts are familiar with science in any > > >form. But they are very unlikely to see the analogy here. What > > >you're discussing is the development of scientific *theory*; the > > >development of engineering *practice*, by contrast, has been bottled > > >up in patents since the beginning of the republic. > > > > While patents do "bottle up" technology, they don't hide it too well. > > In point of fact, obtaining a patent is supposed to require complete > > disclosure of the technology being patented, and this makes the theory > > and practice *knowledge* available to all as soon as the patent issues. > > But they do still "bottle up" the technology in the sense that it > can't be used or deployed without permission of the patent holder --- > which is clearly the ultimate goal of the studios wrt DVDs and CSS. > > It's also fair to point out that they are using concealment as another > means toward that end (which is actually the basis of the California > lawsuit). But still, I think they'd be happy with a perpetual > patent-like monopoly, if that's all they get out of the current legal > action --- and I'm sure that most people here wouldn't, due to the > crippling effects on fair use, and other factors. > > rst Well, if they get a perpetual patent-like monopoly at least they'll be first up against the wall when the revolution comes. That should make the lawyers here breath easier. Neuromancer, here we come. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 23:18:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA26024 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:18:44 -0500 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 XAA26021 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:18:40 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld7aj.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.157.83]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA01534 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:20:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00EA68.48C1A85C@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 23:15:37 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Compensated for Access (more Final Rule) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=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 final rule: "In almost all cases where this exemption will apply, the copyright owner will already have been compensated for access to the work. It is only when the access controls malfunction that the exemption will come into effect. This does not cause significant harm to the copyright owner." So, I wonder why this reasoning does not apply to the harm of DeCSS when used to play a DVD for which the author has already been compensated? The "already have been compensated for access" bit is being applied in two different ways, isn't it? One way for whether it is important enough in the NY case to stop the injunction of a speaker (it wasn't), then another way for whether it is important enough to justify an exemption (it was). That's a very fine line. Curvy, too. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 23:28:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA26152 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:28:40 -0500 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 XAA26149 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:28:38 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld7aj.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.157.83]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA25967 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:30:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A00ECDA.850EA725@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 23:26:02 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: [dvd-discuss] No guidance? (more Final Rule) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=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 extent that reverse engineering of something other than a computer program may be necessary, proponents of a reverse engineering exemption would be asking the Librarian to do what no court has ever done: to find that reverse engineering of something other than a computer program constitutes fair use or some other noninfringing use. It is conceivable that the courts may address that issue one day, but it is not appropriate to address that issue of first impression in this rulemaking proceeding without the benefit of judicial or statutory guidance." Is it true that there is no judicial history of "fair use" of hardware? Is there copyrightable hardware? mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 01:34:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA27358 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:34:44 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA27353 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:34:31 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA03099 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:44:17 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:44:12 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA Sponsor Critical Message-ID: <20001103014412.E2176@eldritchpress.org> References: <20001102191106.15181.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> <3A01F17C.457E6674@mediaone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3A01F17C.457E6674@mediaone.net>; from sphere1952@mediaone.net on Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 05:58:04PM -0500 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 05:58:04PM -0500, Sphere wrote: > > > That glimmer's just the eye of the hurricane. The > other eye-wall will follow close behind. We don't > win unless the matter is taken out of the > legislature's hands with a clear no-no from > mamma court. > > > Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > On the distant horizen, a small patch of blue appears in an otherwise > > black and stormy sky. Meanwhile, unaffected by this glimmer of hope, > > the storm presses on, the wind howls, and the lightning crashes down. > > > > --- "James S. Tyre" wrote: > > > A press release today from Congressman Rick Boucher. He is not > > > pleased. > > > > > Statement of Congressman Rick Boucher > > > > "Fair use is not protected. There is little doubt that the 107th > > Congress will consider proposed revisions to the DMCA. Given the > > importance of fair use to society as a whole, my hope is that Congress > > will re-calibrate the DMCA to balance more evenly the interests of > > copyright owners and information consumers." I agree. Fair use is protected by users using works. Neither Congress nor the courts should be in the business of balancing economic interests, between copyright owners and information consumers. Instead, Congress should pass laws that fulfill the balance struck in the Copyright Clause, between authors (not "holders) and the public domain (and here the public domain should be construed broadly, to include fair use as well as use after copyright expires). In that sense, Congress need do nothing positive to protect fair use, and the Librarian of Congress need do nothing to identify a class of works that should enjoy fair use, but rather Congress should do something negative, just keep its hands off the public domain and don't prevent users from enjoying fair use, when Congress passes copyright laws. Instead of this, what has been happening is that some corporations ("copyright holders") are able to come to Congress and plead that they are on the verge of bankruptcy (because of us "pirates") and they can't continue to get their enormous profits unless Congress passes more laws that take away fair use of their products. Congress should refuse (and also refuse the generous campaign contributions these businesses offer). Since they can't refuse, the courts should just throw out these bad laws, and chastise the lawmakers, not send these bad laws back for a few minor corrections and a rewrite on the same principles. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 02:29:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA27632 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 02:29:13 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA27626 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 02:29:10 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:17:26 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:55:57 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:55:57 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] No guidance? (more Final Rule) Message-ID: <20001103085557.A16324@lemuria.org> References: <3A00ECDA.850EA725@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A00ECDA.850EA725@mindspring.com>; from mickeym@mindspring.com on Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:26:02PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu mickeym wrote: > Is it true that there is no judicial history of "fair use" of hardware? > Is there copyrightable hardware? what about the IBM PC? it _was_ reverse-engineered. and it's definitely not software. firmware, maybe. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 02:29:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA27634 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 02:29:13 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA27630 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 02:29:12 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:17:26 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:08:07 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:08:07 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001103090807.B16324@lemuria.org> References: <20001102170932.A14057@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 03:54:54PM +0000 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Hosgood wrote: > Er - Tom, you're starting a fight over nothing here! Unless I misread sorry, I didn't intend to start a fight. but this argument is misleading, I believe. and they're surely not "functionally identical". complementary, maybe. CSS is an encryption algorithm, while DeCSS is a decryption software. you could argue that DeCSS and a "licensed player" are functionally identical. it's not quite true, but close enough. > Challenge the judge(s) to explain why this should be so, given that no > stolen goods are involved. for one, the linux machine did not run DeCSS, the software in question on this trial. it couldn't, because DeCSS is a windows software. and on the other hand, the question is not whether or not there may be a legal usage of DeCSS, but whether or not the potential for misuse, with unlimited harm to the plaintiffs (and destruction of the universe, blah, blah) is of much greater concern than a protection of this piracy tool. I'd rather prefer to play a more open game, though from what I know about the US legal system, being honest may be the last thing you want. set up a windoze machine with DeCSS. demonstrate that you can decrypt a DVD and put the vob files on the harddisk. also show that the available DVD players _refuse_ to play these vobs (they do). demonstrate that you can't burn the vobs on a DVD-R in a way that would lead to a playable disk. ask the plaintiffs whether they know a way. say something along the lines of "as you can see, DeCSS has a very limited function, which is of no immediate use to pirates. however, it was a necessary step towards the development of..." move over to the Linux machine and demonstrate the LiVid player. ask the plaintiffs (and this _is_ a trick question) whether they oppose the existence of a Linux DVD player, aside from the question of whether or not it incorporates DeCSS. if they say "yes", argue with the malfunction/obsolete/unavailable argument from the LOC. if they say "no", home in on the "control of player market" argument via the "so you only mind the existence of an _independent_ DVD player that's not subject to your CSS licensing trust?" road. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 04:19:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA28451 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:19:31 -0500 Received: from rasputin.trustix.com (rasputin.xilix.com [195.139.104.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA28448 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:19:26 -0500 Received: from trustix.com (singsing.trustix.com [195.139.105.100]) by rasputin.trustix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DFCB180EC for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:20:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A027646.ABEC2B32@trustix.com> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:24:38 +0100 From: Lars Gaarden Organization: Trustix AS X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] No guidance? (more Final Rule) References: <3A00ECDA.850EA725@mindspring.com> <20001103085557.A16324@lemuria.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 Tom Vogt wrote: > > mickeym wrote: > > Is it true that there is no judicial history of "fair use" of hardware? > > Is there copyrightable hardware? > > what about the IBM PC? it _was_ reverse-engineered. and it's definitely not > software. firmware, maybe. Both the BIOS and the ISA bus were reverse engineered, at least. The thought that reverse engineering of hardware is not fair use would make 3rd party automobile spare part manufacturers to laugh. Also, not only hardware and software has a long history of RE. How about data and entire systems? http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/372/aiken.html http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/372/aikenref.html -- LarsG From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 05:32:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA32120 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 05:32:30 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA32117 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 05:32:25 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12693; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:33:56 GMT Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:33:56 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20001103090807.B16324@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt writes: > Steve Hosgood wrote: > > Er - Tom, you're starting a fight over nothing here! Unless I misread > > sorry, I didn't intend to start a fight. but this argument is misleading, I > believe. and they're surely not "functionally identical". complementary, > maybe. CSS is an encryption algorithm, while DeCSS is a decryption > software. > Hmm - that's a fair enough point. I've always though of "CSS" as being the *offical* scrambling system (both encoding and decoding) with "deCSS" being the unofficial version. I never really considered it important whether we were talking encryption or decryption. > you could argue that DeCSS and a "licensed player" are functionally > identical. it's not quite true, but close enough. > This is what I thought I read out of Sphere's original message. On re-reading I can now certainly see a different interpretation! It seems fair enough (from its acronym) that CSS be the name for only the offical *scrambling* system, and deCSS is the name for a program containing an unoffical *descrambling* system. Interestingly, we don't seem ever to have given a name for the *offical* descrambling system contained in DVDCCA-licenced players! Maybe it should be "CuSS" for "Content unScrambling System"? :-) In which case my posting should have claimed that Cuss and deCSS are functionally identical..... > > Challenge the judge(s) to explain why this should be so, given that no > > stolen goods are involved. > > > for one, the linux machine did not run DeCSS, the software in question on > this trial. it couldn't, because DeCSS is a windows software. and on the > other hand, the question is not whether or not there may be a legal usage > of DeCSS, but whether or not the potential for misuse, with unlimited harm > to the plaintiffs (and destruction of the universe, blah, blah) is of much > greater concern than a protection of this piracy tool. > > A good point. Is this court case specifically about "deCSS" - strictly in the form of the windoze program that can descramble DVD content into VOBs, or is it about the *knowledge* to do the descrambling of DVDs generally? > set up a windoze machine with DeCSS. demonstrate that you can decrypt a DVD > and put the vob files on the harddisk. also show that the available DVD > players _refuse_ to play these vobs (they do). demonstrate that you can't > burn the vobs on a DVD-R in a way that would lead to a playable disk. ask > the plaintiffs whether they know a way. > Is that true? I'm told that quite a few European film-makers produce DVDs without CSS. It surely would strengthen the claim that CSS really stands for "Cartel Straitjacketing System" if it could be shown that no-one could release DVDs without signing up to the DVDCCA's licences? But I'm sure that "Plunkett and Maclean" and/or "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" are cases of R2 DVDs which don't use CSS. > say something along the lines of "as you can see, DeCSS has a very limited > function, which is of no immediate use to pirates. however, it was a > necessary step towards the development of..." move over to the Linux > machine and demonstrate the LiVid player. ask the plaintiffs (and this _is_ > a trick question) whether they oppose the existence of a Linux DVD player, > aside from the question of whether or not it incorporates DeCSS. if they > say "yes", argue with the malfunction/obsolete/unavailable argument from > the LOC. if they say "no", home in on the "control of player market" > argument via the "so you only mind the existence of an _independent_ DVD > player that's not subject to your CSS licensing trust?" road. > That looks better than my suggestion. -- Steve | Steve's law of House Rewiring: steve@equiinet.co.uk | "No matter how many power sockets Phone: +44 1792 540009 | you fit in a room, you will run Fax: +44 1792 295811 | out within the first week of use --------------------------------------------+ even if you took Steve's law of http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | House Rewiring into account" From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 10:19:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01522 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:19:57 -0500 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 KAA01519 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:19:54 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial235.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA00737 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:11:45 -0700 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:11:44 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Compensated for Access (more Final Rule) Message-ID: <20001103081144.A711@localhost> References: <3A00EA68.48C1A85C@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3A00EA68.48C1A85C@mindspring.com>; from mickeym@mindspring.com on Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:15:37PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:15:37PM -0500, mickeym wrote: > from final rule: > > "In almost all cases where this exemption will apply, the copyright > owner will already have been compensated for access to the work. It is > only when the access controls malfunction that the exemption will come > into effect. This does not cause significant harm to the copyright > owner." > > So, I wonder why this reasoning does not apply to the harm of DeCSS when > used to play a DVD for which the author has already been compensated? > > The "already have been compensated for access" bit is being applied in > two different ways, isn't it? One way for whether it is important enough > in the NY case to stop the injunction of a speaker (it wasn't), then > another way for whether it is important enough to justify an exemption > (it was). That's a very fine line. Curvy, too. An injunction against DeCSS or another process is only needed in the case that the infrastructure is "hard to replace". The whole repeal of the First Amendment is intimately linked with the attempt to control use by defining "access" as each and every decryption. In the case of access as the initial commercial transaction to acquire the work, either (1) a key was stolen, or (2) the cipher was cracked. Because the crypto in this case is used to encipher a transmitted message, either (1) the keys are one-time -> no need for an injunction or (2) the cipher is bad, replace it --> no need for an injunction. Access control measures have at least three legally relevant technological attributes: (A) Does the control support the notion of authorized individuals? ("effective") (B) Is the control weak or strong? (The law doesn't care, but it should. Otherwise it is promoting *in*security.) (C) Is the control used on stored data (i.e. non-atomic access) or on transmitted data? (Does the control solve the problem of insuring payment when no copy _changes_ hands at first sale, or alternatively is it a hook to impose contractual limitations on use of the work?) Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 11:25:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA02225 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:25:26 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA02222 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:25:24 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:26:46 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno transcript To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:26:43 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/03/2000 08:26:45 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 yet another example where the idology of "natural rights copyrights" fails to provide a manageable system. Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno arvard.edu transcript 11/01/00 03:44 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 08:21:35AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > [quoting ?]... > that there is an item, let's say a film master. Which before the > copyright has expired will become unusable if they don't have any > incentive, to let's say digitize it before it's too late. > > The one who would like to republish it after it enters the public > domain, won't have that opportunity, as you were suggesting, you know, > putting the books on the Internet or something like that. Because the > work will be gone during it's protected period. > > There are fair use exemption for libraries to make additional copies for > preservation purposes. The CTEA provides that libraries and archives may--in the last year of copyright term--make a copy of a work--provided the copyright owner has not registered it as having commercial value--and there is no provision for distributing the work to other than library clients. As far as I know, nobody has tested this provision for 1923 or 1924 works and placed them on the Internet. Apparently it was a bone thrown to the librarians, who resisted the CTEA in the first place, but if so it is an inedible one. As Paul points out, deposit of films is not mandatory since 1978-- and many films were not deposited before then--they were only shown in theaters and not sold to the public. I can tell you that many books from the 1920s will not live to the date they enter the public domain--they are falling apart from acid paper and there are not resources to microfilm them, deacidify them, or digitize them. We "bookpeople" would love to be able to scan them for free and put them on the Internet, but we face jail terms if we did so and a copyright owner or heir emerged from the woodwork. The problem with old movies is acute--the Library of Congress has designated a large group as "orphan films"--the makers have gone out of business and it is no longer possible to determine who own the rights. The MPAA asserts that today's studios are the ones who are especially qualified to preserve and make available such films, and consequently deserve a handout in the form of longer copyright terms--however, there is no evidence that the studios wish to spend the money to preserve such films. Two of the plaintiffs in Eldred v. Reno are film preservation groups and are quite qualified to determine the economics of this matter, and the problems with existing laws. We hope the judges will listen to them. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 11:28:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA02333 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:28:00 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA02330 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:27:59 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:29:13 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:29:10 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/03/2000 08:29:13 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 5. Bankers 6. Telemarketers 7. People who spam your answering machine with taped messages "James S. Tyre" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici arvard.edu 11/01/00 06:27 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 07:36 PM 11/1/2000 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote: >Also seriously, who does the word hate more than lawyers? 1. Dentists 2. Used car salesmen 3. Insurance salesmen 4. ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:35:52 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:37:18 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: DMCA Final Rule To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:37:16 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/03/2000 08:37:18 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Maybe you could send them to me encrypted using CSS. Then I could use DeCSS and if they tried to procecute either of us we could appeal to the DMCA and procecute them...;-) Frank Andrew Stevenson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: DMCA Final Rule arvard.edu 11/02/00 04:22 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you. ( Alternatively face DMCA charges :-) frank On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > I haven't seen anything on the data formats on DVDs. Do you have a > reference? I'd like to know what the function of the first 128bit block is > and why 84-88 are so special. 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 Nov 3 11:41:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA02532 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:41:00 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA02528 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:40:58 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:42:27 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:42:25 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/03/2000 08:42:26 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Check out the Hyperlight speed antenna patent....or any of Analytical Graphics Inc's patents. "Harold Eaton" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici arvard.edu 11/02/00 10:04 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Robert S. Thau wrote: >Well, I'm not sure that the courts are familiar with science in any >form. But they are very unlikely to see the analogy here. What >you're discussing is the development of scientific *theory*; the >development of engineering *practice*, by contrast, has been bottled >up in patents since the beginning of the republic. While patents do "bottle up" technology, they don't hide it too well. In point of fact, obtaining a patent is supposed to require complete disclosure of the technology being patented, and this makes the theory and practice *knowledge* available to all as soon as the patent issues. This allows for someone else to immediately make improvements (and possibly patent those for themselves). Copyrighting software without publishing it is *nothing* like the patent process as far as advancement of the useful arts is concerned. Of course many companies don't like the disclosure aspects to the patent laws, and so avoid providing the real details of how they do what they do, and the patent office often issues anyway. But this is not the way patents are supposed to work. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 11:45:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA02675 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:45:03 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA02672 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:45:01 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:46:25 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA Sponsor Critical To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:46:23 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/03/2000 08:46:24 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 can hope and do what we can to let them see the error of their ways and REPENT! ;-) Sphere To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA arvard.edu Sponsor Critical 11/02/00 04:57 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss That glimmer's just the eye of the hurricane. The other eye-wall will follow close behind. We don't win unless the matter is taken out of the legislature's hands with a clear no-no from mamma court. Bryan Taylor wrote: > > On the distant horizen, a small patch of blue appears in an otherwise > black and stormy sky. Meanwhile, unaffected by this glimmer of hope, > the storm presses on, the wind howls, and the lightning crashes down. > > --- "James S. Tyre" wrote: > > A press release today from Congressman Rick Boucher. He is not > > pleased. > > > Statement of Congressman Rick Boucher > > "Fair use is not protected. There is little doubt that the 107th > Congress will consider proposed revisions to the DMCA. Given the > importance of fair use to society as a whole, my hope is that Congress > will re-calibrate the DMCA to balance more evenly the interests of > copyright owners and information consumers." > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > >From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. > http://experts.yahoo.com/ -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 11:46:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA02686 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:46:10 -0500 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 LAA02683 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:46:08 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id IAA13408 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:47:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost1.ia.nsc.com(147.5.200.40) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma013218; Fri, 3 Nov 00 08:46:34 -0800 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16039; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:46:33 -0700 From: "John Zulauf" To: "Dvd-Discuss" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA Sponsor Critical Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:52:53 -0700 Message-ID: <001601c045b6$81e4e500$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 > > > Statement of Congressman Rick Boucher > > > > "Fair use is not protected. There is little doubt that the 107th > > Congress will consider proposed revisions to the DMCA. Given the > > importance of fair use to society as a whole, my hope is that Congress > > will re-calibrate the DMCA to balance more evenly the interests of > > copyright owners and information consumers." From: Eric Eldred Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:44:12 -0500 > I agree. Fair use is protected by users using works. > Neither Congress nor the courts should be in the business > of balancing economic interests, between copyright owners > and information consumers. Instead, Congress should pass > laws that fulfill the balance struck in the Copyright Clause, > between authors (not "holders) and the public domain (and > here the public domain should be construed broadly, to > include fair use as well as use after copyright expires). who would have standing to bring action against the LoC and the DMCA on constitutional grounds. I very clearly feel that the DMCA and LoC have and are violating my civil rights under the constitution. Like the CDA, this thing just needs to die the ignominious death of all unconstitutional law. However, how do I or anyone else gain standing to challenge this affront to my rights? I was very concerned that the court in Eldred-v-Reno was struggling so hard with the concept of Eldred et. al. standing. Clearly the livelihoods and rights were at stake here. Yet the court did not seem disposed to grant them standing to challenge the case. As I read that I wondered, "if Eldred et. al. don't have standing, who could?" Thus my question regarding the LoC rule making. Just as now judge can ignore "prior restraint" issues with ellipsis, no rulemaker can avoid first sale and fair use by disclaiming it as only "inconvenience." When I can't make fair use of copyright material after first sale, a constitutional promise has been broken and a civil right violated. One could as easily argue that being required by the police to submit to a brief 30 second search of my person or property, at random and without due process as only "inconvenience." From a practical point of view it is in fact less inconvenient to show a police officer the contents of my pockets than it is to utterly rearrange every piece of A/V equipment I own (and buy some new pieces) because I can't plug my DVD into the VCR I use to convert from video RCA to antenna coax. (this I have to do to accomodate my new Playstation-2). Measured purely by convenience, the 5 seconds it would take to turn out my pockets on demand for the police is far less than the impact of the non-exemption of Macrovision'd works on my home entertainment center and a whole Saturday afternoon. No one, however could rightly assert that the relative difference in the "convenience" of the two acts has any bearing on the constitutional significance of the action. The LoC has referred to the loss of our rights as an inconvenience. What is needed to have standing to challenge that bit of unconstitutional nonsense? John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 11:51:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA02932 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:51:45 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA02929 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:51:43 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:52:43 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA Sponsor Critical To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:52:41 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/03/2000 08:52:42 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think you are right here. What "we" really want is for Congress to restore the balance between public domain and copyright. Also, I think it needs to recognize the difference between licensed copyright works and published copyright works. For the former, I think they need to come up with a code (like the UCC but defintily NOT UCITA) that dictates that licensed works must satisfy certain restrictions to maintain their licensed status otherwise they become published works that WILL become the personal property of persons (subject only to copyright restrictions). Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA arvard.edu Sponsor Critical 11/02/00 10:38 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 05:58:04PM -0500, Sphere wrote: > > > That glimmer's just the eye of the hurricane. The > other eye-wall will follow close behind. We don't > win unless the matter is taken out of the > legislature's hands with a clear no-no from > mamma court. > > > Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > On the distant horizen, a small patch of blue appears in an otherwise > > black and stormy sky. Meanwhile, unaffected by this glimmer of hope, > > the storm presses on, the wind howls, and the lightning crashes down. > > > > --- "James S. Tyre" wrote: > > > A press release today from Congressman Rick Boucher. He is not > > > pleased. > > > > > Statement of Congressman Rick Boucher > > > > "Fair use is not protected. There is little doubt that the 107th > > Congress will consider proposed revisions to the DMCA. Given the > > importance of fair use to society as a whole, my hope is that Congress > > will re-calibrate the DMCA to balance more evenly the interests of > > copyright owners and information consumers." I agree. Fair use is protected by users using works. Neither Congress nor the courts should be in the business of balancing economic interests, between copyright owners and information consumers. Instead, Congress should pass laws that fulfill the balance struck in the Copyright Clause, between authors (not "holders) and the public domain (and here the public domain should be construed broadly, to include fair use as well as use after copyright expires). In that sense, Congress need do nothing positive to protect fair use, and the Librarian of Congress need do nothing to identify a class of works that should enjoy fair use, but rather Congress should do something negative, just keep its hands off the public domain and don't prevent users from enjoying fair use, when Congress passes copyright laws. Instead of this, what has been happening is that some corporations ("copyright holders") are able to come to Congress and plead that they are on the verge of bankruptcy (because of us "pirates") and they can't continue to get their enormous profits unless Congress passes more laws that take away fair use of their products. Congress should refuse (and also refuse the generous campaign contributions these businesses offer). Since they can't refuse, the courts should just throw out these bad laws, and chastise the lawmakers, not send these bad laws back for a few minor corrections and a rewrite on the same principles. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 12:21:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA03154 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:21:45 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA03149 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:21:44 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:23:14 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA Sponsor Critical To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:23:12 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/03/2000 09:23:13 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Actually, it seems odd for a late 70's radical (Graduate of Kent State University 1979) to be clammering to restore the copyright back to what it was in 1976 at a minimum and 1909 preferably.....At least in 1909, they seemed to have spent a lot of time discussing the matter and trying to come up with a usable solution as opposed to what they did a few years ago. Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA Sponsor Critical 11/03/00 09:08 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss I think you are right here. What "we" really want is for Congress to restore the balance between public domain and copyright. Also, I think it needs to recognize the difference between licensed copyright works and published copyright works. For the former, I think they need to come up with a code (like the UCC but defintily NOT UCITA) that dictates that licensed works must satisfy certain restrictions to maintain their licensed status otherwise they become published works that WILL become the personal property of persons (subject only to copyright restrictions). Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA arvard.edu Sponsor Critical 11/02/00 10:38 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 05:58:04PM -0500, Sphere wrote: > > > That glimmer's just the eye of the hurricane. The > other eye-wall will follow close behind. We don't > win unless the matter is taken out of the > legislature's hands with a clear no-no from > mamma court. > > > Bryan Taylor wrote: > > > > On the distant horizen, a small patch of blue appears in an otherwise > > black and stormy sky. Meanwhile, unaffected by this glimmer of hope, > > the storm presses on, the wind howls, and the lightning crashes down. > > > > --- "James S. Tyre" wrote: > > > A press release today from Congressman Rick Boucher. He is not > > > pleased. > > > > > Statement of Congressman Rick Boucher > > > > "Fair use is not protected. There is little doubt that the 107th > > Congress will consider proposed revisions to the DMCA. Given the > > importance of fair use to society as a whole, my hope is that Congress > > will re-calibrate the DMCA to balance more evenly the interests of > > copyright owners and information consumers." I agree. Fair use is protected by users using works. Neither Congress nor the courts should be in the business of balancing economic interests, between copyright owners and information consumers. Instead, Congress should pass laws that fulfill the balance struck in the Copyright Clause, between authors (not "holders) and the public domain (and here the public domain should be construed broadly, to include fair use as well as use after copyright expires). In that sense, Congress need do nothing positive to protect fair use, and the Librarian of Congress need do nothing to identify a class of works that should enjoy fair use, but rather Congress should do something negative, just keep its hands off the public domain and don't prevent users from enjoying fair use, when Congress passes copyright laws. Instead of this, what has been happening is that some corporations ("copyright holders") are able to come to Congress and plead that they are on the verge of bankruptcy (because of us "pirates") and they can't continue to get their enormous profits unless Congress passes more laws that take away fair use of their products. Congress should refuse (and also refuse the generous campaign contributions these businesses offer). Since they can't refuse, the courts should just throw out these bad laws, and chastise the lawmakers, not send these bad laws back for a few minor corrections and a rewrite on the same principles. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 12:55:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA03920 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:55:56 -0500 Received: from nanocrew.net (nanocrew.net [195.204.80.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA03917 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:55:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 13693 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Nov 2000 17:53:43 -0000 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:53:43 +0100 From: Jon Lech Johansen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001103185343.A936@nanocrew.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20001103090807.B16324@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 10:33:56AM +0000 X-Website-You-Must-Visit: www.eff.org X-Sender: jon@nanocrew.net X-PGP-Key: http://nanocrew.net/jon.asc Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 10:33:56AM +0000, Steve Hosgood (steve@i2it.co.uk) wrote: > > Is that true? I'm told that quite a few European film-makers produce DVDs > without CSS. It surely would strengthen the claim that CSS really stands > for "Cartel Straitjacketing System" if it could be shown that no-one could > release DVDs without signing up to the DVDCCA's licences? But I'm sure that > "Plunkett and Maclean" and/or "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" are cases > of R2 DVDs which don't use CSS. There's a list of DVDs that aren't encrypted at the following url: http://www.videolan.org/freedvd.html -- Jon Johansen nanocrew.net dig @195.204.80.2 nanocrew.net. axfr | \ perl -e 'for(sort(<>)){print pack("H32",$1) if(/^c..\.(\w+)/)}' | gzip -d From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 13:27:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA04148 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:27:17 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA04145 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:27:01 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA03743 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:36:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:36:49 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA Sponsor Critical Message-ID: <20001103133649.E3602@eldritchpress.org> References: <001601c045b6$81e4e500$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <001601c045b6$81e4e500$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com>; from john.zulauf@ia.nsc.com on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 09:52:53AM -0700 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 09:52:53AM -0700, John Zulauf wrote: >.... > The LoC has referred to the loss of our rights as an inconvenience. What is > needed to have standing to challenge that bit of unconstitutional nonsense? The studios and other copyright holders have argued that the DMCA is a positive incentive to creation of more new works, since it allows publishers to distribute free of 'piracy'. We need to attack this argument again and again and as hard as we can. The DMCA and other strong "intellectual property" laws do not give incentives to create new works--only authors can create new works, not publishers. And production and publishing have always in the Constitution been segregated away from the role of creation by authors--deliberately so, in order to prevent publishers from attaining monopolies any more complete than is necessary just to create works for the public domain. Note that the Constitution refers to "limited right" in the singular. The Constitution makes the balance, not Congress nor the courts. The LOC report simply parrots this line of the studios, that after the DMCA we will enjoy a true renaissance of video for consumers. In truth, it is only propping up an obsolete business model, and only temporarily. We should demand instead that Congress stop printing more new copyright laws, and just rescind what it has passed recently. These laws stand in the way of the technology of the Internet, and what will come in the future because of this technology. Otherwise we who use the Internet will be treated as an "inconvenience" standing in the way of e-commerce profits. I don't think it is impossible that this DeCSS case can raise the right issues for the DMCA to be declared unconstitutional. But if not then we have to keep trying. We might in the end be surprised to find that some wise corporations see that giving such powers to the current monopolies stands in the way of their own progress. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 14:01:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA04498 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:01:42 -0500 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 OAA04495 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:01:35 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id LAA11199 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:03:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost1.ia.nsc.com(147.5.200.40) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma010481; Fri, 3 Nov 00 11:01:04 -0800 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA02853; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:00:58 -0700 From: "John Zulauf" To: "Dvd-Discuss" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA Sponsor Critical Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:07:18 -0700 Message-ID: <001d01c045c9$49117dc0$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 > On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 09:52:53AM -0700, John Zulauf wrote: > >.... > > The LoC has referred to the loss of our rights as an inconvenience. What is > > needed to have standing to challenge that bit of unconstitutional nonsense? From: Eric Eldred Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:36:49 -0500 > We need to attack this argument again and again and as hard as > we can. The DMCA and other strong "intellectual property" laws > do not give incentives to create new works--only authors can > create new works, not publishers. Yes but how. How do "we the people" get standing to assert our rights? > We might in the end be surprised to find that some wise > corporations see that giving such powers to the current > monopolies stands in the way of their own progress. That's not as far fetched as you'd think. Oddly enough I was at Microsoft about a month ago. Some of the people there understand that all this copy control and DRM stuff actual undercut the value of the PC. The PC is the most useful tool known to mankind. Legal limits restricting the use and usefulness of that tool risks all suppliers of that tools (chip, OS, and mfg). Then I walked out of the building followed by a M'Softie wearing a copyleft circle-slash DVD-CCA shirt -- surreal huh? This same risk applies to information appliances (a subject near and dear to my heart) as legislative support of licensed-imposed homogeneity as has happened in the DVD case, reduced the number of product differentiators to exactly one -- price. Odder things have happened. Who would have guess 2 years ago that IBM would be one of the leading Linux companies. Stockholders care about returns, and eventually the rubbin'-elbows-with-hollywood wears thin when you see it attacking your bottom line. However, if the courts fix this issue only after it affects some corporate interest -- we'll know that it's time for some kind of revolution. This is about protecting the constitutional rights of the citizenry -- NOT JUST CONVENIENCE!!!! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 14:54:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA05001 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:54:17 -0500 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 OAA04984 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:54:13 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial118.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00944 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:46:07 -0700 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:46:07 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA Sponsor Critical Message-ID: <20001103124607.A910@localhost> References: <001601c045b6$81e4e500$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <001601c045b6$81e4e500$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com>; from john.zulauf@ia.nsc.com on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 09:52:53AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 09:52:53AM -0700, John Zulauf wrote: > > > > > Statement of Congressman Rick Boucher > > > > > > "Fair use is not protected. There is little doubt that the 107th > > > Congress will consider proposed revisions to the DMCA. Given the > > > importance of fair use to society as a whole, my hope is that Congress > > > will re-calibrate the DMCA to balance more evenly the interests of > > > copyright owners and information consumers." > > From: Eric Eldred > Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:44:12 -0500 > > > I agree. Fair use is protected by users using works. > > Neither Congress nor the courts should be in the business > > of balancing economic interests, between copyright owners > > and information consumers. Instead, Congress should pass > > laws that fulfill the balance struck in the Copyright Clause, > > between authors (not "holders) and the public domain (and > > here the public domain should be construed broadly, to > > include fair use as well as use after copyright expires). > > who would have standing to bring action against the LoC and the DMCA on > constitutional grounds. I very clearly feel that the DMCA and LoC have and > are violating my civil rights under the constitution. Like the CDA, this > thing just needs to die the ignominious death of all unconstitutional law. > However, how do I or anyone else gain standing to challenge this affront to > my rights? > > I was very concerned that the court in Eldred-v-Reno was struggling so hard > with the concept of Eldred et. al. standing. Clearly the livelihoods and > rights were at stake here. Yet the court did not seem disposed to grant > them standing to challenge the case. As I read that I wondered, "if Eldred > et. al. don't have standing, who could?" Thus my question regarding the LoC > rule making. I don't know about standing, but a plausible thin edge of the wedge for challenging the legal basis of the "fair use is merely an inconvenience" starts at , section III.A.2 "The Necessary Showing" at page 64558: The language of section 1201(a)(1) does not offer much guidance as to the respective burdens of proponents and opponents of any classes of works to be exempted from the prohibition on circumvention. Of course, it is a general rule of statutory construction that exemptions must be construed narrowly in order to preserve the purpose of a statutory provision, and that rule is applied in interpreting the copyright law. Which is, so far as this non-lawyer is concerned, a contradiction of the standard enuciated in the holdings of Fantasy v. Fogerty with respect to penalties in infringement litigation. The words "exceptions intended to protect fair use should be construed narrowly" have an immediate impact on issues of infringement, and the impact is entirely one-side. It is in favor of the copyright owner. Not solely on the issue of civil penalties to be sure, but the rules are favoritism on the scope of activities that might, or might not, be adjudicable. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 15:39:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA05518 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:39:07 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA05514 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:39:05 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:30:14 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:50:08 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:50:08 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001103165008.A17509@lemuria.org> References: <20001103090807.B16324@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 10:33:56AM +0000 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Hosgood wrote: > A good point. Is this court case specifically about "deCSS" - strictly in the > form of the windoze program that can descramble DVD content into VOBs, or is > it about the *knowledge* to do the descrambling of DVDs generally? I believe we can say it is about the DeCSS program alone. for example, while I've been spammed with MPAA e-mails asking to remove DeCSS from my webpage, not a single such mail has turned up so far when it comes to DeCSSplus, DecVOB or even css_auth.c - all of whom are also unofficial CSS decryption implementations, and the first two more powerful than DeCSS. > > set up a windoze machine with DeCSS. demonstrate that you can decrypt a DVD > > and put the vob files on the harddisk. also show that the available DVD > > players _refuse_ to play these vobs (they do). demonstrate that you can't > > burn the vobs on a DVD-R in a way that would lead to a playable disk. ask > > the plaintiffs whether they know a way. > > Is that true? I'm told that quite a few European film-makers produce DVDs > without CSS. yes, but they still use industry-grade DVD presses - not consumer-grade DVD writers. see, on all DVDs you as a customer can buy in a shop, the key-sector is pre-burned. without a key-sector, the DVD players will not play it. and aside from that, consumer-grade DVDs have a capacity of 2 GB (I believe 4 GB are coming to market now) - while most movies are between 7 and 9 GB total. > It surely would strengthen the claim that CSS really stands > for "Cartel Straitjacketing System" if it could be shown that no-one could > release DVDs without signing up to the DVDCCA's licences? not CSS-encrypted ones. but you are right that people DO produce DVDs without CSS. but that's still an industrial process. at this time you cannot create home-made DVDs the way you can, e.g. create home-videos. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 16:05:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA05795 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:05:37 -0500 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 QAA05792 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:05:36 -0500 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 QAA08425 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:07:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:07:09 -0500 (EST) From: Ole Craig To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001103165008.A17509@lemuria.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 11/03/00 at 16:50, 'twas brillig and Tom Vogt scrobe: > > > set up a windoze machine with DeCSS. demonstrate that you can decrypt a DVD > > > and put the vob files on the harddisk. also show that the available DVD > > > players _refuse_ to play these vobs (they do). demonstrate that you can't > > > burn the vobs on a DVD-R in a way that would lead to a playable disk. ask > > > the plaintiffs whether they know a way. > > > > Is that true? I'm told that quite a few European film-makers produce DVDs > > without CSS. > > yes, but they still use industry-grade DVD presses - not consumer-grade DVD > writers. see, on all DVDs you as a customer can buy in a shop, the > key-sector is pre-burned. without a key-sector, the DVD players will not > play it. > and aside from that, consumer-grade DVDs have a capacity of 2 GB (I believe > 4 GB are coming to market now) - while most movies are between 7 and 9 GB > total. Whoa. (Forget CSS altogether for a minute.) Are you saying that as a home video enthusiast, I cannot, using blank OTC media and a burner, create (with my original content) a DVD that will play in a DVD player? That's a *huge* cartel-imposed technological restraint on my ability to self-publish. That alone should blow the DVDCCA-MPAA-CEI licensing scheme clear out of the water and onto some very, very sharp antitrust rocks. Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 16:42:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA06061 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:42:13 -0500 Received: from mail.travel-net.com (root@mail.travel-net.com [204.92.71.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA06058 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:42:11 -0500 Received: from travel-net.com (trj108.travel-net.com [207.176.160.108]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15575 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:43:38 -0500 Message-ID: <3A033183.CEC580F6@travel-net.com> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 16:43:31 -0500 From: Dan Steinberg 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] Amici 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 C'mon, dont everyone pick on this one. It was *just* for hyperlight speed.. there was other claimed uses.......one of them might even work.... Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Check out the Hyperlight speed antenna patent....or any of Analytical > Graphics Inc's patents. > > > "Harold Eaton" > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici > arvard.edu > > > 11/02/00 10:04 AM > Please respond to > dvd-discuss > > > > Robert S. Thau wrote: > > >Well, I'm not sure that the courts are familiar with science in any > >form. But they are very unlikely to see the analogy here. What > >you're discussing is the development of scientific *theory*; the > >development of engineering *practice*, by contrast, has been bottled > >up in patents since the beginning of the republic. > > While patents do "bottle up" technology, they don't hide it too well. > In point of fact, obtaining a patent is supposed to require complete > disclosure of the technology being patented, and this makes the theory > and practice *knowledge* available to all as soon as the patent issues. > > This allows for someone else to immediately make improvements (and > possibly patent those for themselves). Copyrighting software without > publishing it is *nothing* like the patent process as far as advancement > of the useful arts is concerned. > > Of course many companies don't like the disclosure aspects to the > patent laws, and so avoid providing the real details of how they > do what they do, and the patent office often issues anyway. But this > is not the way patents are supposed to work. > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@vrx.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 16:58:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA06273 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:58:44 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA06270 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:58:42 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id eA3LxVX23198 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:59:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A03353A.3E7EC38E@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 16:59:22 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > yes, but they still use industry-grade DVD presses - not consumer-grade DVD > > writers. see, on all DVDs you as a customer can buy in a shop, the > > key-sector is pre-burned. without a key-sector, the DVD players will not > > play it. > > and aside from that, consumer-grade DVDs have a capacity of 2 GB (I believe > > 4 GB are coming to market now) - while most movies are between 7 and 9 GB > > total. > > > Whoa. (Forget CSS altogether for a minute.) Are you saying > that as a home video enthusiast, I cannot, using blank OTC media and a > burner, create (with my original content) a DVD that will play in a > DVD player? > > That's a *huge* cartel-imposed technological restraint on my > ability to self-publish. That alone should blow the DVDCCA-MPAA-CEI > licensing scheme clear out of the water and onto some very, very sharp > antitrust rocks. > It's at least a malfunction.... mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 17:55:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA06825 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:55:58 -0500 Received: from mail.world-net.co.nz (mail.world-net.co.nz [203.96.119.27]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06822 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:55:56 -0500 Received: from leopard.lan (nw3-49.world-net.co.nz [202.37.68.49]) by mail.world-net.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA09459 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 11:51:59 +1300 From: Daniel Richards Organization: Digital Freedom Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 11:53:40 +1300 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Friday 03 November 2000 23:33, you wrote: [snip] > A good point. Is this court case specifically about "deCSS" - strictly in > the form of the windoze program that can descramble DVD content into VOBs, > or is it about the *knowledge* to do the descrambling of DVDs generally? I beleive the MPAA has defined DeCSS as anything that decrypts CSS without a license. So this would include DeCSS+ and DecVOB as well as Livid. If this is incorrect, someone correct me. Im fairly sure i've seen it mentioned in one of the transcripts on the EFF website. -- http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ - Kyh's DeCSS stuff http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/DRpubkey.txt "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 19:39:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07526 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 19:39:04 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA07518 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 19:39:02 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 01:29:44 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:19:04 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:19:04 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan>; from kyhwana@world-net.co.nz on Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 11:53:40AM +1300 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Daniel Richards wrote: > I beleive the MPAA has defined DeCSS as anything that decrypts CSS without a > license. > So this would include DeCSS+ and DecVOB as well as Livid. > If this is incorrect, someone correct me. Im fairly sure i've seen it > mentioned in one of the transcripts on the EFF website. if you find it, please post. I'd be quite interested in any redefinition of DeCSS by the MPAA. that's like me redefining, say, "tarzan" from one specific movie to anything that includes jungles and elephants. I'm fairly sure that if I based a lawsuit on that stunt, I'd be laughed out of court. then again, enough money down your throat is known to stop a good laugh, isn't it? -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 19:39:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07533 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 19:39:06 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA07527 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 19:39:04 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 01:29:44 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:20:27 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:20:27 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic Message-ID: <20001104002027.C19089@lemuria.org> References: <3A03353A.3E7EC38E@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A03353A.3E7EC38E@mindspring.com>; from mickeym@mindspring.com on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 04:59:22PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu mickeym wrote: > It's at least a malfunction.... returns us to the question I posted earlier this week: is a "designed-in" malfunction still a malfunction? what exactly is a malfunction, in lawyer-speak? anyone got the definition handy? -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 19:39:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07519 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 19:39:03 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA07514 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 19:39:01 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 01:29:44 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:17:21 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:17:21 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001104001721.A19089@lemuria.org> References: <20001103165008.A17509@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from olc@cs.umass.edu on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 04:07:09PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ole Craig wrote: > Whoa. (Forget CSS altogether for a minute.) Are you saying > that as a home video enthusiast, I cannot, using blank OTC media and a > burner, create (with my original content) a DVD that will play in a > DVD player? that is correct. > That's a *huge* cartel-imposed technological restraint on my > ability to self-publish. That alone should blow the DVDCCA-MPAA-CEI > licensing scheme clear out of the water and onto some very, very sharp > antitrust rocks. not necessarily. you do not have a RIGHT to specific uses of a technology, do you? I mean, it's not like you can demand to create 16mm movies at home, either. of course, you can go out and spend half a million or so on the necessary equipment, but you can also buy DVD presses for roughly the same price. HOWEVER - it could be *very* interesting to watch the fireworks if some consumer electronics company decides to leave the rank and file and create writers that *can* access the key section and blank DVD-Rs that do *not* have that section pre-burned. most likely this would have to be a new company since I'm fairly sure the CSS license for the CE industry declares acts like that as the #1 verboten activities. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 20:08:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA07911 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:08:32 -0500 Received: from dial113.roadrunner.com (sf-du113.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.113]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA07908 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:08:29 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial113.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01312 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:00:24 -0700 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:00:23 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001103180023.A1293@localhost> References: <20001103165008.A17509@lemuria.org> <20001104001721.A19089@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20001104001721.A19089@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 12:17:21AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 12:17:21AM +0100, Tom Vogt wrote: > Ole Craig wrote: > > Whoa. (Forget CSS altogether for a minute.) Are you saying > > that as a home video enthusiast, I cannot, using blank OTC media and a > > burner, create (with my original content) a DVD that will play in a > > DVD player? > > that is correct. > > > > That's a *huge* cartel-imposed technological restraint on my > > ability to self-publish. That alone should blow the DVDCCA-MPAA-CEI > > licensing scheme clear out of the water and onto some very, very sharp > > antitrust rocks. > > not necessarily. you do not have a RIGHT to specific uses of a technology, > do you? I mean, it's not like you can demand to create 16mm movies at home, > either. of course, you can go out and spend half a million or so on the > necessary equipment, but you can also buy DVD presses for roughly the same > price. Isn't the DVD situation more nearly analogous to buying the 16/35mm camera (and associated goodies) and then finding that your prints will not run in "standard" 16/35mm projectors? Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 20:11:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA08021 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:11:22 -0500 Received: from mail.travel-net.com (root@mail.travel-net.com [204.92.71.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA08018 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:11:21 -0500 Received: from travel-net.com (trj108.travel-net.com [207.176.160.108]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA29094 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:12:59 -0500 Message-ID: <3A036292.F59505F2@travel-net.com> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 20:12:50 -0500 From: Dan Steinberg 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] Practical magic References: <3A03353A.3E7EC38E@mindspring.com> <20001104002027.C19089@lemuria.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 Tom Vogt wrote: > mickeym wrote: > > It's at least a malfunction.... > > returns us to the question I posted earlier this week: is a "designed-in" > malfunction still a malfunction? what exactly is a malfunction, in > lawyer-speak? anyone got the definition handy? what would you like it to be??????????????? -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@vrx.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 20:22:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA08195 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:22:07 -0500 Received: from dial106.roadrunner.com (sf-du106.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.106]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA08192 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:22:01 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial106.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01489 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:13:55 -0700 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:13:50 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001103181350.A1471@localhost> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 12:19:04AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 12:19:04AM +0100, Tom Vogt wrote: > Daniel Richards wrote: > > I beleive the MPAA has defined DeCSS as anything that decrypts CSS without a > > license. > > So this would include DeCSS+ and DecVOB as well as Livid. > > If this is incorrect, someone correct me. Im fairly sure i've seen it > > mentioned in one of the transcripts on the EFF website. > > if you find it, please post. I'd be quite interested in any redefinition of > DeCSS by the MPAA. that's like me redefining, say, "tarzan" from one > specific movie to anything that includes jungles and elephants. I'm fairly > sure that if I based a lawsuit on that stunt, I'd be laughed out of court. > > then again, enough money down your throat is known to stop a good laugh, > isn't it? Gurgle, gurgle. (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. I know, I know --- authorized implementations are also enjoined by this defintion of DeCSS because they also "decrypt or unscramble the contents of DVDs" Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 20:32:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA08311 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:32:04 -0500 Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.49]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA08308 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:32:03 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa048.pool007.at001.earthlink.net [216.249.78.48]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05495 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:33:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001103173011.00d4b430@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 17:33:33 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding News 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 (Or is it? I don't recall seeing this before, but I could have missed it.) http://www.inside.com/story/Story_Cached/0%2C2770%2C13777_10_18_1%2C00.html Sony Quietly Codes DVDs to Defeat Popular Multi-Region Players By Ben Berkowitz Thursday , November 02 07:46 p.m. Less than a month after Warner Home Video denied that it had put any software on its DVDs to prevent the discs from being played in unauthorized players (and also denied that a final version of the software even existed), competitor Columbia TriStar Home Video has confirmed that it is now using the security software on some of its discs. Beginning with The Patriot, released Oct. 24, the home video arm of Sony is using a program called Regional Coding Enhancement on some of the movie discs to prevent them from being played outside their intended region. For purposes of DVD encoding, the world is divided into six regions (the U.S. being region 1), the idea being that such regional encoding on both discs and players allows studios to control what movies are seen where, and when. This, in theory, preserves the value chain for international distributors and helps the studios prevent, for example, British consumers from buying American discs ahead of the U.K. release date. However, not long after DVDs first became commercially available, it became clear that it was fairly easy to modify most DVD players to be what is variously called ''region-free'' or ''multi-zone,'' allowing them to play any disc from any part of the world. Regional Coding Enhancement apparently has the ability to scan a player and see if it has been altered; if the player is region-free, the disc will refuse to play. [....] -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com 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 Nov 3 21:35:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA08821 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:35:23 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA08812 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:35:11 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04152 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:45:08 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:45:03 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA Sponsor Critical Message-ID: <20001103214503.B4073@eldritchpress.org> References: <001601c045b6$81e4e500$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> <20001103124607.A910@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20001103124607.A910@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 12:46:07PM -0700 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 12:46:07PM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: >... > I don't know about standing, I think we have standing in both Eldred v. Reno and Universal Studios v. Corley. >but a plausible thin edge of the wedge for > challenging the legal basis of the "fair use is merely an inconvenience" > starts at , section III.A.2 "The > Necessary Showing" at page 64558: > > > The language of section 1201(a)(1) does not offer much guidance as > to the respective burdens of proponents and opponents of any classes of > works to be exempted from the prohibition on circumvention. Of course, > it is a general rule of statutory construction that exemptions must be > construed narrowly in order to preserve the purpose of a statutory > provision, and that rule is applied in interpreting the copyright law. > > > Which is, so far as this non-lawyer is concerned, a contradiction > of the standard enuciated in the holdings of Fantasy v. Fogerty with > respect to penalties in infringement litigation. The words "exceptions > intended to protect fair use should be construed narrowly" have an > immediate impact on issues of infringement, and the impact is entirely > one-side. It is in favor of the copyright owner. Not solely on the issue > of civil penalties to be sure, but the rules are favoritism on the scope > of activities that might, or might not, be adjudicable. A narrow construction goes against the plain language of both the exemptions written into the DMCA ("nothing" shall impede fair use), and the First Amendment itself, "no law". Here we have a case of one copyright holder not even accusing another copyright holder of infringement, but instead using the "threat" or "potential" of some third party's infringement, to get prior restraint on the publication by a magazine of some other copyrighted work. This does not sound like a narrow construction to me, it sounds like as broad a protection as the MPAA can pay for. And it sounds like a good argument for having the DMCA declared unconstitutional, not having it sent back to Congress for a cosmetic surgery job. The idea that "classes of works" can be narrowly exempted on fair use grounds has now been shown to be utterly impractical even when the LOC did its best to do the job Congress required (to make sense of what Congress had passed). From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 22:49:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA09506 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:49:10 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA09503 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:49:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08709 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:50:43 -0700 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:50:42 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001103181350.A1471@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 Has anyone thought of petitioning Kaplan for an order to show cause to, say, Sears or Macy's? Since they aren't a part of the DVDCCA, they're not officially plaintiffs, so logically are under the same constraints as the Defendants by most readings of the order. So if they sell a DVD player by an authorized manufacturer, they're still "trafficking in circumvention devices" by the text of the order. Sometimes _Reductio ad absurdum_ is a valid legal strategy... On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 12:19:04AM +0100, Tom Vogt wrote: > > Daniel Richards wrote: > > > I beleive the MPAA has defined DeCSS as anything that decrypts CSS without a > > > license. > > > So this would include DeCSS+ and DecVOB as well as Livid. > > > If this is incorrect, someone correct me. Im fairly sure i've seen it > > > mentioned in one of the transcripts on the EFF website. > > > > if you find it, please post. I'd be quite interested in any redefinition of > > DeCSS by the MPAA. that's like me redefining, say, "tarzan" from one > > specific movie to anything that includes jungles and elephants. I'm fairly > > sure that if I based a lawsuit on that stunt, I'd be laughed out of court. > > > > then again, enough money down your throat is known to stop a good laugh, > > isn't it? > > Gurgle, gurgle. > > > (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. > > > I know, I know --- authorized implementations are also enjoined by this > defintion of DeCSS because they also "decrypt or unscramble the contents > of DVDs" > > > Paul Fenimore > -- EMACS == Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 01:03:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA10272 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 01:03:26 -0500 Received: from mail.world-net.co.nz (mail.world-net.co.nz [203.96.119.27]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA10269 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 01:03:24 -0500 Received: from leopard.lan (nwp-111.world-net.co.nz [202.37.167.111]) by mail.world-net.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA00839 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:59:20 +1300 From: Daniel Richards Organization: Digital Freedom Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:01:06 +1300 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001103173011.00d4b430@cyberpass.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001103173011.00d4b430@cyberpass.net> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding News MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00110419010602.00797@leopard.lan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Saturday 04 November 2000 14:33, you wrote: > Sony Quietly Codes DVDs to Defeat Popular > Multi-Region Players > By Ben Berkowitz [snip stuff about regions/etc] Does anyone know how this works exactly? Does it scan the DVD drive/player to see if it can be set to different regions, or just checks to see if it ignores region codes? Of course, if you have a DVD-drive, this is mute because you just decrypt the DVD and watch it. (Because really, we all know how useless and stupid the court's decison is) DecVOB (linux only, im not sure.) will decrypt ANY DVD that uses standard CSS. Whch you can get from below URL (That whole soverign nation/juridstiction thing.) Or http://leopard.osoal.org.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ incase my ISP decides to cave :) -- http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ - Kyh's DeCSS stuff http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/DRpubkey.txt "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 02:19:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA10649 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 02:19:55 -0500 Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA10646 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 02:19:54 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA08795 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:18:05 -0700 (MST) Received: from sessions.phx.primenet.com(206.132.239.114), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAUTaOir; Sat Nov 4 00:18:03 2000 Received: from heorot.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@heorot.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.1]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA16273 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:20:48 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding News Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:18:50 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001103173011.00d4b430@cyberpass.net> <00110419010602.00797@leopard.lan> In-Reply-To: <00110419010602.00797@leopard.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00110400204600.16264@heorot.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 03 Nov 2000, Daniel Richards wrote: > On Saturday 04 November 2000 14:33, you wrote: > > > Sony Quietly Codes DVDs to Defeat Popular > > Multi-Region Players > > By Ben Berkowitz > [snip stuff about regions/etc] > Does anyone know how this works exactly? Does it scan the DVD drive/player to > see if it can be set to different regions, or just checks to see if it > ignores region codes? Am I the only one who smells male bovine excreta? DVDs are purely passive devices, people. The disk itself, obviously, CANNOT do any checks on the player. The reporter(s) on this one seem to have gotten the story totally hosed. > Of course, if you have a DVD-drive, this is mute because you just decrypt the > DVD and watch it. > (Because really, we all know how useless and stupid the court's decison is) > DecVOB (linux only, im not sure.) will decrypt ANY DVD that uses standard > CSS. Whch you can get from below URL (That whole soverign > nation/juridstiction thing.) > Or http://leopard.osoal.org.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ incase my ISP decides to cave > :) > > > > -- > http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ - Kyh's DeCSS stuff > http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/DRpubkey.txt > "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a > puff of logic." -- | Engineers solve problems -- it's what we do. | | Do you want to be a problem? | | D. C. Sessions === dcs@lumbercartel.com | From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 05:02:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA11586 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 05:02:00 -0500 Received: from mail.world-net.co.nz (mail.world-net.co.nz [203.96.119.27]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA11583 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 05:01:56 -0500 Received: from leopard.lan (nwp-111.world-net.co.nz [202.37.167.111]) by mail.world-net.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA29144 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 22:58:01 +1300 From: Daniel Richards Organization: Digital Freedom Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 22:59:38 +1300 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001103173011.00d4b430@cyberpass.net> <00110419010602.00797@leopard.lan> <00110400204600.16264@heorot.lumbercartel.com> In-Reply-To: <00110400204600.16264@heorot.lumbercartel.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding News MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00110422593900.00728@leopard.lan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Saturday 04 November 2000 20:18, you wrote: > Am I the only one who smells male bovine excreta? > > DVDs are purely passive devices, people. The disk itself, obviously, > CANNOT do any checks on the player. The reporter(s) on this one > seem to have gotten the story totally hosed. Hrrrm, you have a point. So, infact it'd be the software players that would have to co-operate? Nah. They could "Fail to include the code block for known region-independant players" or put a region 0 block that's an endless loop. So region 0 players loop. So in otherwords, there's gong to be a lot of pissed off customers when they try to play their discs in ther players. With DVD-drives in computers, this won't be a problem (or just decrypt it *shrugs*) I don't know about the US, but here in NZ you can't do that sort of thing. It's against the law. (Somethiing under the Consumers gaurentee's act or Fair Trading Act) I mean, it's a DVD. A DVD player plays DVD's If you sell a DVD that wont play in someones DVD player but with no warning (The customer thinks it's just a normal DVD) then you have to provide them with one that will. It's all very fuzzy though. The MPA has already 'made" the NZ government stop the parallel importing of DVD's, something that the consumer does want. Consumer rights? You don't have any! -- http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ - Kyh's DeCSS stuff http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/DRpubkey.txt "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 05:36:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA11824 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 05:36:12 -0500 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 FAA11821 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 05:36:09 -0500 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4001) id DEF0699C80; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 02:37:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF953938C0 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 02:37:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 02:37:40 -0800 (PST) From: Ken Arromdee To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding News In-Reply-To: <00110422593900.00728@leopard.lan> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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, 4 Nov 2000, Daniel Richards wrote: > I don't know about the US, but here in NZ you can't do that sort of thing. > It's against the law. (Somethiing under the Consumers gaurentee's act or Fair > Trading Act) If you have a reference for this I would be really glad to see it because people have been saying for a long time that region coding is illegal in New Zealand, but nobody's ever found any reference to it or any proof that it's true. By the way, the way to play a DVD using the "new" protection scheme, which is not very new at all (it was first reported a couple of months after DVDs just began to come out), is to use a player that can switch regions rather than one which is just region 0. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 05:46:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA11973 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 05:46:33 -0500 Received: from dfawcus-laptop.cisco.com (isdn-nat-1.cisco.com [192.82.152.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id FAA11970 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 05:46:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 700 invoked by uid 69022); 4 Nov 2000 10:48:26 -0000 Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:48:04 +0000 From: Derek Fawcus To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding News Message-ID: <20001104104804.A692@dfawcus-gw-home.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <00110400204600.16264@heorot.lumbercartel.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, D. C. Sessions wittered: > > DVDs are purely passive devices, people. The disk itself, obviously, > CANNOT do any checks on the player. Actually the DVD does contain a computer program (the .IFO files) for a virtual machine implemented by all DVD players. This can contain a check that the machine is of the correct region by virtue of the fact that there is a register in the virtual machine which has the region number in it. Thus one should be able to make the 'interoperability of one program with another' argument for reverse engineering. Now I'd hope that those multi-region players actually work by changing the value in this register and keeping it read-only from the programs point of view. This type of check was reportedly implemented in some (Disney?) DVDs a while ago, and prevented the simple region-free players from working (since I guess they didn't deal with the register in the VM). I'm not sure if this 'new' method mentioned is anything other that a repetition of the above mentioned check, or if they've done something else. DF From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 10:39:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13465 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:39:10 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA13458 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:39:08 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:30:01 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:02:13 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:02:13 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001104090213.B20080@lemuria.org> References: <20001103165008.A17509@lemuria.org> <20001104001721.A19089@lemuria.org> <20001103180023.A1293@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001103180023.A1293@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 06:00:23PM -0700 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: > Isn't the DVD situation more nearly analogous to buying the 16/35mm camera > (and associated goodies) and then finding that your prints will not run in > "standard" 16/35mm projectors? you are not buying a "real" 16/35mm camera (i.e. an industrial DVD press) but instead a tuned-down consumer-grade version. you are, of course, free to buy the real thing. in order to use CSS, you will also have to sign a license, but that is not an unusual situation. in addition, you are free to publish on other media. (analog to the "if you want fair use, buy the VHS" argument) -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 10:39:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13473 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:39:12 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA13466 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:39:10 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:30:01 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:04:50 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:04:50 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic Message-ID: <20001104090450.C20080@lemuria.org> References: <3A03353A.3E7EC38E@mindspring.com> <20001104002027.C19089@lemuria.org> <3A036292.F59505F2@travel-net.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A036292.F59505F2@travel-net.com>; from dstein@travel-net.com on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 08:12:50PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dan Steinberg wrote: > > > It's at least a malfunction.... > > > > returns us to the question I posted earlier this week: is a "designed-in" > > malfunction still a malfunction? what exactly is a malfunction, in > > lawyer-speak? anyone got the definition handy? > > what would you like it to be??????????????? that's a tricky question. I don't think it's a malfunction, or obsoleteness, or one of the other exceptions, but a whole class of it's own, say "artificial restriction". and it should be the plaintiff's job to make a very good argument as to why I can't circumvent that. analog to patent law: I can't use a patented technology without getting a license from whoever owns the patent. I *can*, however, "further the state of science" by building on his patent and developing an advanced version. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 10:39:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13482 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:39:15 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA13474 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:39:12 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:30:01 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:07:26 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:07:26 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding News Message-ID: <20001104090726.D20080@lemuria.org> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001103173011.00d4b430@cyberpass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001103173011.00d4b430@cyberpass.net>; from jstyre@jstyre.com on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 05:33:33PM -0800 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "James S. Tyre" wrote: > However, not long after DVDs first became commercially available, it > became clear that it was fairly easy to modify most DVD players to > be what is variously called ''region-free'' or ''multi-zone,'' allowing > them to play any disc from any part of the world. Regional Coding > Enhancement apparently has the ability to scan a player and see if > it has been altered; if the player is region-free, the disc will refuse > to play. now if that ain't a malfunction... someone got a list of those DVDs handy? I'd love to buy them all, then return them (opened, of course) to the store. repeat with next store. go back a few days later and say: "hey, you remember me? I returned those 15 DVDs on monday. I found out why they don't work by now, I thought you might be interested..." -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 10:39:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13490 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:39:18 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA13481 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:39:15 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:30:01 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:10:25 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:10:25 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding News Message-ID: <20001104091025.E20080@lemuria.org> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001103173011.00d4b430@cyberpass.net> <00110419010602.00797@leopard.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <00110419010602.00797@leopard.lan>; from kyhwana@world-net.co.nz on Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 07:01:06PM +1300 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Daniel Richards wrote: > [snip stuff about regions/etc] > Does anyone know how this works exactly? Does it scan the DVD drive/player to > see if it can be set to different regions, or just checks to see if it > ignores region codes? presumably, it "lies" to the DVD player about its region first, and if the player accepts that, it stops there and doesn't do anything. if the player refuses, it's told the "real" region. > (Because really, we all know how useless and stupid the court's decison is) > DecVOB (linux only, im not sure.) will decrypt ANY DVD that uses standard > CSS. Whch you can get from below URL (That whole soverign > nation/juridstiction thing.) > Or http://leopard.osoal.org.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ incase my ISP decides to cave > :) DecVOB comes with source and if it doesn't compile on windoze, it should be easy to port. if you do, make sure to send me a copy for lemuria.org -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 10:39:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13457 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:39:08 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA13453 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:39:06 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:30:01 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 08:59:51 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 08:59:51 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001104085951.A20080@lemuria.org> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> <20001103181350.A1471@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001103181350.A1471@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 06:13:50PM -0700 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: > > then again, enough money down your throat is known to stop a good laugh, > > isn't it? > > Gurgle, gurgle. well, we should *definitely* include a comment about that in the amici. it's just plain stupid to enjoin such a broad class of technology. and in addition: > > (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. > > > I know, I know --- authorized implementations are also enjoined by this > defintion of DeCSS because they also "decrypt or unscramble the contents > of DVDs" as a matter of fact, they are. someone please look that up, but I believe that "copying to memory" *is* defined as copying in the law. I know that the german copyright law has extra exemptions for this (because it is usually necessary to *run* the damn program). if this is the same in the US, I'd like to send a couple software DVD makers a cease&desist letter... -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 13:09:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA15194 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:09:05 -0500 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 NAA15191 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:09:02 -0500 Message-ID: <20001104181008.2765.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.113.151] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 04 Nov 2000 10:10:08 PST Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:10:08 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding 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 --- Derek Fawcus wrote: > On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, D. C. Sessions wittered: > > > > DVDs are purely passive devices, people. The disk itself, > > obviously, CANNOT do any checks on the player. > > Actually the DVD does contain a computer program (the .IFO files) for > a virtual machine implemented by all DVD players. This can contain a > check that the machine is of the correct region by virtue of the > fact that there is a register in the virtual machine which has > the region number in it. Is there a name for the commandset used in the .ifo files? The fact that a DVD contains programs is a point that I don't think the defense team said much about. This raises the problem of how to recognize it in the appeal, since you can't introduce new evidence. Does anybody know if there was anything introduced that could be used to support the ".ifo's => program" point? Hopefully, the Conn. case will get this information into their record. Gold did admit in the preliminary injuction hearing that the keys were "software". Also, I'd argue that the use of compression technology (MPEG2, AC3) makes DVD's "programs" under the expansive definition in the copyright Act. > Thus one should be able to make the 'interoperability of one program > with another' argument for reverse engineering. There is another important way to use this that is related to first sale. Since a DVD is a "program", then section 117 gives the "owner" the right to made an "adaptation" in order to utilize the program in a machine. This lends tremendous support to our "first sale" argument that there is an implicit licence to view a sold, published work, and it also shows how stupid Kaplan's "first sale = ability to resell only" point is. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 13:51:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA15555 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:51:47 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA15552 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:51:43 -0500 Received: from ip174.bedford9.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.79.174]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 13s8RK-0000Sn-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 04 Nov 2000 13:53:18 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding News Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 13:58:47 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20001104181008.2765.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20001104181008.2765.qmail@web514.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 NAA15553 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:10:08 -0800 (PST), Bryan Taylor wrote: > >--- Derek Fawcus wrote: >> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, D. C. Sessions wittered: >> > >> > DVDs are purely passive devices, people. The disk itself, >> > obviously, CANNOT do any checks on the player. >> >> Actually the DVD does contain a computer program (the .IFO files) for >> a virtual machine implemented by all DVD players. This can contain a >> check that the machine is of the correct region by virtue of the >> fact that there is a register in the virtual machine which has >> the region number in it. > >Is there a name for the commandset used in the .ifo files? AFAIK it's just "DVD Video." This is a problem in that the DVD commands and language are kept hidden under NDA. Signees only say things like "there's a goto, or some bitwise operators, or maybe some environmental variables." This is not sufficient. Schoolchildren should be able to read books on DVD Video and its 128 commands. Jim Taylor should be able to write thick books on the subject without worrying about a possible lawsuit. FI, take another proprietary multimedia format. If one wants to learn Macromedia Director, one can read up on Lingo. Similarly, Microsoft doesn't hide Visual Basic behind an NDA. DVD Video is the black box in 1201. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 17:33:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA18138 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:33:39 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA18135 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:33:37 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id RAA00581 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:35:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id RAA17805; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:35:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:35:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Daniel Richards writes: > On Friday 03 November 2000 23:33, you wrote: > [snip] > > A good point. Is this court case specifically about "deCSS" - strictly in > > the form of the windoze program that can descramble DVD content into VOBs, > > or is it about the *knowledge* to do the descrambling of DVDs generally? > > I beleive the MPAA has defined DeCSS as anything that decrypts CSS > without a license. I'm not sure the MPAA offered that definition, but Kaplan definitely did. His final judgment, on page 3, defines "DeCSS" as 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. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 17:59:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA18321 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:59:25 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA18318 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:59:24 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id SAA02502 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:01:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id SAA17981; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:00:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:00:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011042300.SAA17981@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001104085951.A20080@lemuria.org> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> <20001103181350.A1471@localhost> <20001104085951.A20080@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote, [after quoting the same bit of Kaplan's final judgment that I just did; ooops]: > > I know, I know --- authorized implementations are also enjoined by this > > defintion of DeCSS because they also "decrypt or unscramble the contents > > of DVDs" Well, Kaplan's order says that "DeCSS" is something that does that *and* allows copying, but as Tom Vogt noted: > as a matter of fact, they are. someone please look that up, but I believe > that "copying to memory" *is* defined as copying in the law. I know that > the german copyright law has extra exemptions for this (because it is > usually necessary to *run* the damn program). I believe the United States is the same; at any rate, in a couple of the reverse engineering cases that I looked through somewhat earlier (Sony v. Connectix, and the earlier Sega v. Accolade), the ninth circuit goes through quite a bit of argument to conclude that copying a program into memory for reverse engineering is fair use (a question which wouldn't arise if it wasn't "copying" in the first place). Of course, if Kaplan had simply added "without the authority of the copyright owner" to "decrypt or descramble..." in his definition of DeCSS, then we'd have a situation which made as much sense as... well, his opinion. A case could be made that the phrase should be read that way in context... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 18:39:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA18603 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:39:05 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA18600 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:39:02 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:31:22 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:25:34 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:25:34 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding News Message-ID: <20001105002534.A22835@lemuria.org> References: <00110422593900.00728@leopard.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from arromdee@rahul.net on Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 02:37:40AM -0800 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ken Arromdee wrote: > If you have a reference for this I would be really glad to see it because > people have been saying for a long time that region coding is illegal in New > Zealand, but nobody's ever found any reference to it or any proof that it's > true. I've also recently heard that the DVD/CSS scheme is running afoul on at least one law in switzerland. no references or details, though. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 19:39:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA18891 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:39:06 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA18884 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:39:04 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 01:29:35 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:48:21 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:48:21 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001105004821.B22926@lemuria.org> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> <20001103181350.A1471@localhost> <20001104085951.A20080@lemuria.org> <200011042300.SAA17981@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200011042300.SAA17981@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 06:00:59PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Of course, if Kaplan had simply added "without the authority of the > copyright owner" to "decrypt or descramble..." in his definition of > DeCSS, then we'd have a situation which made as much sense as... well, > his opinion. A case could be made that the phrase should be read that > way in context... that would, however, require that the copyright holder(*) *grants* authority. none of my DVDs contains a notice that they are authorized to be decrypted by this player or that software. without such a notice, how can I as a customer know whether or not I'm breaking the law by watching my movies? should I call up the MPAA hotline each time I bought a new movie and ask what players have been granted authorization for this movie? the authorization is contained within the players. don't worry. as long as you have a licensed player, everything is fine. well, dear mr. valenti, you didn't answer my question, just shifted it. so how do I know whether or not a piece of software or a hardware player I own is "licensed"? there was no CSS license inside my software player. there was no explicit notice that it's got authorization. *and* as you, mr. valenti, said: if I decrypt without authorization, that's against the law, so you're putting me into a position where I don't know wheter or not I'm commiting a crime by watching a movie. if your stupid authority system is for real, you'll have to put a list of authorized players into every DVD you sell. or something to the effect of "authorized to be decrypted by all DVD players that carry the STC(**) logo". (*) sorry, I'm trying to watch mine and everyone's mouth on these issues. fine points, but: "owner" designates property, and there is no such thing as "intellectual property" except in the marketing buzzword dictionary and the wet dreams of those who'd like to have some. (**) Screw The Customer -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 19:39:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA18885 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:39:05 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA18880 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:39:02 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 01:29:35 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:39:16 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:39:16 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001105003916.A22926@lemuria.org> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 05:35:13PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > I'm not sure the MPAA offered that definition, but Kaplan definitely > did. His final judgment, on page 3, defines "DeCSS" as another error to point out to the higher court, and another case where kaplan not only gave the plaintiffs everything they wanted, but even added a little cream on top. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 5 00:21:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA20842 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:21:15 -0500 Received: from funk.iinet.net.au (funk.iinet.net.au [203.59.24.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA20839 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:21:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 1040 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2000 05:22:38 -0000 Received: from reggae-03-144.nv.iinet.net.au (HELO Mark) (Rk1led@203.59.78.144) by www.echidna.id.au with SMTP; 5 Nov 2000 05:22:38 -0000 Message-ID: <008501c046e8$9cce59e0$0401020a@Mark> From: "Mark Hore" To: References: <20001103165008.A17509@lemuria.org> <20001104001721.A19089@lemuria.org> <20001103180023.A1293@localhost> <20001104090213.B20080@lemuria.org> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:24:01 +0800 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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >From memory, a DVD writer will allow you to make an 'industrial grade' DVD but the blank media is pre-burned in the protection sector. This is not analogous to the 16/35mm camera but instead to adding an extra sprigot on the film feed that requires an extra hole(additional modification) cut in such a way that the 16/35mm film will no longer play on a standard projector. in order to use CSS you do not need a licence as CSS is an algorithm rather than a copyrightable work of art. If you create your own implementation that will work with DVD players the MPAA "can't" touch you. (Not that it won't stop them from trying). Embrace. Extend. Extinguish Anyway i am not a lawyer and anything i say should not be taken as legal advice or indeed anything more than the ravings of a madman. Tom Vogt wrote in a blinding flash of the obvious: > Paul Fenimore wrote: > > Isn't the DVD situation more nearly analogous to buying the 16/35mm camera > > (and associated goodies) and then finding that your prints will not run in > > "standard" 16/35mm projectors? > > > you are not buying a "real" 16/35mm camera (i.e. an industrial DVD press) > but instead a tuned-down consumer-grade version. you are, of course, free > to buy the real thing. in order to use CSS, you will also have to sign a > license, but that is not an unusual situation. > in addition, you are free to publish on other media. (analog to the "if you > want fair use, buy the VHS" argument) > > > > -- > "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." > (John Gilmore) > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 5 03:24:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA21524 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 03:24:53 -0500 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 DAA21521 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 03:24:51 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 13sL8G-0004Bf-00; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:26:28 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 13sL8I-0002xA-00; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:26:30 +0100 Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:26:30 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001105092629.A11175@inka.de> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 05:35:13PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 05:35:13PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > I'm not sure the MPAA offered that definition, but Kaplan definitely > did. His final judgment, on page 3, defines "DeCSS" as > > 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. I think I rememebr reading this same wording in one of the MPAA's pretrial documents, I'm not sure which one though. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "If your business model is selling water in the desert and it starts to rain, you'd better find a different business model." (Ian Clarke) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 5 04:05:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA22433 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 04:05:31 -0500 Received: from mail.world-net.co.nz (mail.world-net.co.nz [203.96.119.27]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA22430 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 04:05:28 -0500 Received: from leopard.lan (nwp-146.world-net.co.nz [202.37.167.146]) by mail.world-net.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA25478 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:01:42 +1300 From: Daniel Richards Organization: Digital Freedom Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:03:25 +1300 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105092629.A11175@inka.de> In-Reply-To: <20001105092629.A11175@inka.de> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00110522032506.00728@leopard.lan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sunday 05 November 2000 21:26, you wrote: > I think I rememebr reading this same wording in one of the MPAA's pretrial > documents, I'm not sure which one though. Yep, you can read it from this URL. http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20000306_ny_mpaa_linking_motion.html "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,"" So, DecVOB is still DeCSS.. cute eh? -- http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ - Kyh's DeCSS stuff http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/DRpubkey.txt "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 5 09:22:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA24720 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:22:54 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA24717 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:22:52 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id JAA00964 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:24:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id JAA21208; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:24:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:24:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011051424.JAA21208@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001105004821.B22926@lemuria.org> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> <20001103181350.A1471@localhost> <20001104085951.A20080@lemuria.org> <200011042300.SAA17981@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105004821.B22926@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt writes: > well, dear mr. valenti, you didn't answer my question, just shifted it. so > how do I know whether or not a piece of software or a hardware player I own > is "licensed"? there was no CSS license inside my software player. there > was no explicit notice that it's got authorization. I think we've been over this ground before. The key thing to remember is that (as Marks' testimony, and Marks and Turnbull, make plain) that the point of CSS is to legally regulate the *players*, as if they had a permanent patent-like monopoly on the CSS process. In particular, this means that you, as a player buyer, aren't supposed to be responsible for checking to see if a player is licensed, just as you aren't personally required to see if it infringes any patents. Rather, the people who built and sold it are responsible for getting all the relevant licenses (for access controls, patents and whatever else). So you, as a consumer, don't have to worry your pretty little head about whether you have one of those nasty unlicensed players. Edgar Bronfman's roman legion of lawyers is there to make sure you don't, by suing into oblivion anybody that might think of giving you one. Aren't you happy? > (*) sorry, I'm trying to watch mine and everyone's mouth on these issues. > fine points, but: "owner" designates property, and there is no such thing > as "intellectual property" except in the marketing buzzword dictionary and > the wet dreams of those who'd like to have some. This is a good point to remember when we get to choose our own words, but in this case we don't; the phrase "authority of the copyright owner" is quoted straight out of 1201(a). rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 5 12:15:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA26245 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:15:51 -0500 Received: from dial250.roadrunner.com (sf-du250.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.250]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA26242 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:15:46 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial250.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01369 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 10:07:30 -0700 Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 10:07:30 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001105100730.A1343@localhost> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> <20001103181350.A1471@localhost> <20001104085951.A20080@lemuria.org> <200011042300.SAA17981@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200011042300.SAA17981@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 06:00:59PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 06:00:59PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > Paul Fenimore wrote, [after quoting the same bit of Kaplan's final > judgment that I just did; ooops]: > > > > I know, I know --- authorized implementations are also enjoined by this > > > defintion of DeCSS because they also "decrypt or unscramble the contents > > > of DVDs" > > Well, Kaplan's order says that "DeCSS" is something that does that > *and* allows copying, but as Tom Vogt noted: > > > as a matter of fact, they are. someone please look that up, but I believe > > that "copying to memory" *is* defined as copying in the law. I know that > > the german copyright law has extra exemptions for this (because it is > > usually necessary to *run* the damn program). > > I believe the United States is the same; at any rate, in a couple of > the reverse engineering cases that I looked through somewhat earlier > (Sony v. Connectix, and the earlier Sega v. Accolade), the ninth > circuit goes through quite a bit of argument to conclude that copying > a program into memory for reverse engineering is fair use (a question > which wouldn't arise if it wasn't "copying" in the first place). > > Of course, if Kaplan had simply added "without the authority of the > copyright owner" to "decrypt or descramble..." in his definition of > DeCSS, then we'd have a situation which made as much sense as... well, > his opinion. A case could be made that the phrase should be read that > way in context... There are two points to emphasize here: 1. In the U.S., copies in RAM are "copies" so far as the law is concerned. That's why 17 U.S.C. 117 exists. 2. Descrambling is a process, the unscrambled/decrypted video output cannot be severed from the process. The court's Final Judgement creates the *erroneous* impression that licensed implementations of CSS vs. DeCSS et al. do something different. This is a critical point --- for the technically non-illiterate it is "obvious" that the two processes are identical. The words "allows copying" are a tautology. Prefixing the word "and" to "allows copying" creates the false impression that the truth value of the "and" operation might be "false". In lawyer-speak: "this is a distinction without a difference." Effectively Judge Kaplan is pushing a line that says that there are two "kinds" of copies --- those that pop out of the display device, and those that are "digital" and "convenient". The whole issue with "digital copying" is a red herring. As already noted by me and many others, the issue is that analog-to-digital converts exist, not that the copyright owner releases a work in a digital encoding. Anyone can do the conversion. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 5 14:09:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA27254 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:09:05 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA27248 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:09:04 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:01:44 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:04:18 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:04:18 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001105200418.B25219@lemuria.org> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> <20001103181350.A1471@localhost> <20001104085951.A20080@lemuria.org> <200011042300.SAA17981@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105004821.B22926@lemuria.org> <200011051424.JAA21208@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200011051424.JAA21208@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 09:24:29AM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > I think we've been over this ground before. The key thing to remember > is that (as Marks' testimony, and Marks and Turnbull, make plain) that > the point of CSS is to legally regulate the *players*, as if they had > a permanent patent-like monopoly on the CSS process. you're right, that's their angle of approach. in essence, the scheme is that copyright holders and player producers have gotten in bed together to regulate the DVD market, and the player producers got screwed - they're the ones operating under severe restrictions, while the copyright holders can do pretty much what they please. there's a SM/sex cartoon there, somewhere. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 5 14:09:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA27247 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:09:04 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA27243 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:09:02 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:01:44 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:00:40 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:00:40 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001105200040.A25219@lemuria.org> References: <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105092629.A11175@inka.de> <00110522032506.00728@leopard.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <00110522032506.00728@leopard.lan>; from kyhwana@world-net.co.nz on Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 10:03:25PM +1300 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Daniel Richards wrote: > "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,"" > So, DecVOB is still DeCSS.. cute eh? then their lawsuit is incompatible with their cease&decist letters, which speak about "a program *called* DeCSS" (my emph) in addition, I'm thinking that this encompasses a *very* broad range of products. for example, if region coding is part of CSS (which I believe *can* be argued, since CSS consists 90% of it's license) then every region-free DVD player falls into that category as well. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 5 14:24:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA27463 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:24:00 -0500 Received: from dial174.roadrunner.com (sf-du174.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.174]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA27460 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:23:56 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial174.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01664 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:15:52 -0700 Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:15:52 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001105121552.A1652@localhost> References: <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105092629.A11175@inka.de> <00110522032506.00728@leopard.lan> <20001105200040.A25219@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20001105200040.A25219@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 08:00:40PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 08:00:40PM +0100, Tom Vogt wrote: > Daniel Richards wrote: > > "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,"" > > So, DecVOB is still DeCSS.. cute eh? > > then their lawsuit is incompatible with their cease&decist letters, which > speak about "a program *called* DeCSS" (my emph) > > > in addition, I'm thinking that this encompasses a *very* broad range of > products. for example, if region coding is part of CSS (which I believe > *can* be argued, since CSS consists 90% of it's license) then every > region-free DVD player falls into that category as well. I'm not sure we want to accept that CSS is in fact the license: Down that road lies the confusion of the access control with copy control, section 1201(a) with 1201(b) and 106(1), ..., the end-point of which is the SDNY decision against the Internet, 2600 Enterprises, and Goldstein. The law (s.1201) talks about technological measures. The CSS license is not a technological measure. CSS scrambling and descrambling are technological measures. Note that the designers of CSS *could* have technologically tied (rather than contractually tied) the scrambling to the region coding by having different player keys for different regions. My *guess* (and it is a guess), is that this was not done because it would make it harder to shed region-coding if a locality (or perhaps the WTO) ruled that region-coding was national-law or GATT illegal. The studios, through their front organization, would maintain their end of the contractual leverage in the studio-player manufacturer-media manufacturer cartel even if (for example) a U.S. court hammers region coding as violating _L'anza v. Quality King_. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 5 15:39:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA28583 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 15:39:05 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA28576 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 15:39:03 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 21:29:41 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:19:54 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:19:54 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001105201954.B25316@lemuria.org> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> <20001103181350.A1471@localhost> <20001104085951.A20080@lemuria.org> <200011042300.SAA17981@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105100730.A1343@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001105100730.A1343@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 10:07:30AM -0700 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: > 1. In the U.S., copies in RAM are "copies" so far as the law is concerned. > That's why 17 U.S.C. 117 exists. which software DVD player is manufactured by a company belonging to one of the plaintiffs? we should send them a cease&desist letter. :) in the very least, a clear pointing out that *kaplan's* formulation (contrary to the plaintiff's one) does include any and all DVD player software, should lead to yet another correction of the ruling. how many "fix packs" can a judge issue before he loses credibility? -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 5 15:39:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA28577 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 15:39:03 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA28572 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 15:39:01 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 21:29:41 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:17:22 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:17:22 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001105201722.A25316@lemuria.org> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> <20001103181350.A1471@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001103181350.A1471@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 06:13:50PM -0700 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: > > (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. > there's another point for the "why we write this amicus brief" here. with such broad terms, the ruling illegalizes any and all future attempts at creating independent DVD software. I don't know how you feel, but I *might* want to create one, some day. I *do* fiddle with my software if I'm not happy with it, and sometimes I recreate it from scratch. who knows, I might want to write DVD software one day. however, the court declares *today* that whatever I may be doing is already illegal, without knowing what I will be doing. the terms are broad enough to cover basically everything. a simple software piece to catalog my DVDs would be illegal, because it would copy a dozen or so bytes or so (the title) from the DVD to a database. note that the wording doesn't even say "significant portion". further along that line, it may be argued that there is little to no use *not* covered by fair use for copying insignificant portions (say, single frames) off a DVD back to the main argument, it is of course ridiculous to demand that I sign a CSS license for such a simple software. even if I were to sell it, the economics would never pay off (how much can you demand for a simple movie database?). the requirement of a license destroys that market. since I can't think of any way how this software could infringe on a copyright, I see no reason why a law that was created to protect copyright should have any impact. in fact it only does because of judge kaplan's overbroad terms. I think even the plaintiffs wouldn't run afoul with it.(*) (*) that may depend on whether or not they or some company they own produces a similiar program. I don't put it above them to abuse the DMCA to kill competition in totally unrelated markets. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 5 16:06:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA28904 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 16:06:47 -0500 Received: from mail.travel-net.com (root@mail.travel-net.com [204.92.71.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA28901 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 16:06:46 -0500 Received: from travel-net.com (trj114.travel-net.com [207.176.160.114]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA00600 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 16:08:34 -0500 Message-ID: <3A05CC2F.E0ED652B@travel-net.com> Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 16:07:59 -0500 From: Dan Steinberg 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] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> <20001103181350.A1471@localhost> <20001104085951.A20080@lemuria.org> <200011042300.SAA17981@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105100730.A1343@localhost> <20001105201954.B25316@lemuria.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 Tom, the 'copies in RAM' bit comes from definitions arrived at in ancient litigation. At issue was whether a copy of software in RAM was a 'copy' or not. Back when computers were coal-burning, people wondered about such things. Obviously a 'copy' of something means you might be able to charge extra for it, or prohibit use of, deny access to, etc. Tom Vogt wrote: > Paul Fenimore wrote: > > 1. In the U.S., copies in RAM are "copies" so far as the law is concerned. > > That's why 17 U.S.C. 117 exists. > > which software DVD player is manufactured by a company belonging to one of > the plaintiffs? we should send them a cease&desist letter. :) > > in the very least, a clear pointing out that *kaplan's* formulation > (contrary to the plaintiff's one) does include any and all DVD player > software, should lead to yet another correction of the ruling. > > how many "fix packs" can a judge issue before he loses credibility? > > -- > "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." > (John Gilmore) -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@vrx.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 5 17:40:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA30627 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:40:11 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA30624 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:40:09 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id RAA09329 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:41:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id RAA22731; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:41:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:41:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011052241.RAA22731@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001105200040.A25219@lemuria.org> References: <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105092629.A11175@inka.de> <00110522032506.00728@leopard.lan> <20001105200040.A25219@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt writes: > in addition, I'm thinking that this encompasses a *very* broad range of > products. for example, if region coding is part of CSS (which I believe > *can* be argued, since CSS consists 90% of it's license) then every > region-free DVD player falls into that category as well. Ummm... CSS exists as a "hook" for allowing the MPAA to require other, distinct technical mechanisms. That doesn't mean that those mechanisms are part of CSS proper. Besides, if you were to argue this way, you'd lose the important point that DeCSS and licensed-CSS are functionally equivalent (because DeCSS allows high-res digital display, doesn't incorporate region coding, and generally doesn't comply with the license-restrictions-du-jour, which change from time to time in any event...). rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 5 18:08:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA30984 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:08:43 -0500 Received: from dial187.roadrunner.com (sf-du187.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.187]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA30981 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:08:38 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial187.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01916 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 16:00:28 -0700 Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 16:00:27 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001105160026.A1875@localhost> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> <20001103181350.A1471@localhost> <20001104085951.A20080@lemuria.org> <200011042300.SAA17981@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105100730.A1343@localhost> <20001105201954.B25316@lemuria.org> <3A05CC2F.E0ED652B@travel-net.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3A05CC2F.E0ED652B@travel-net.com>; from dstein@travel-net.com on Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 04:07:59PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 04:07:59PM -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote: > Tom, the 'copies in RAM' bit comes from definitions arrived at in ancient > litigation. At issue was whether a copy of software in RAM was a 'copy' or > not. Back when computers were coal-burning, people wondered about such > things. > Obviously a 'copy' of something means you might be able to charge extra > for it, or prohibit use of, deny access to, etc. > > Tom Vogt wrote: > > > Paul Fenimore wrote: > > > 1. In the U.S., copies in RAM are "copies" so far as the law is concerned. > > > That's why 17 U.S.C. 117 exists. > > > > which software DVD player is manufactured by a company belonging to one of > > the plaintiffs? we should send them a cease&desist letter. :) The SDNY court order probably doesn't apply to the plaintiffs or their subsidiaries because item "1" of the Final Judgment doesn't describe them: 1. The Remaining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise be and they hereby are permanently enjoined and restrained from: I don't think this part of the Final Judgment covers say, Sony Corp. of America (I don't know if RCA manufacturers DVD players or not, this just an example). > > in the very least, a clear pointing out that *kaplan's* formulation > > (contrary to the plaintiff's one) does include any and all DVD player > > software, should lead to yet another correction of the ruling. [ ... ] Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 5 22:03:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA00367 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:03:22 -0500 Received: from emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (cc273095-a.hwrd1.md.home.com [24.3.46.177]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA00364 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:03:20 -0500 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03729; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:04:59 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:04:59 -0500 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200011060304.WAA03729@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <20001105160026.A1875@localhost> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> <20001103181350.A1471@localhost> <20001104085951.A20080@lemuria.org> <200011042300.SAA17981@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105100730.A1343@localhost> <20001105201954.B25316@lemuria.org> <3A05CC2F.E0ED652B@travel-net.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: > >The SDNY court order probably doesn't apply to the plaintiffs or their >subsidiaries because item "1" of the Final Judgment doesn't describe them: > > > 1. The Remaining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, > employees and attorneys and all persons in active concert or > participation with them who receive actual notice of this order by > personal service or otherwise be and they hereby are permanently > enjoined and restrained from: > > >I don't think this part of the Final Judgment covers say, Sony Corp. of >America (I don't know if RCA manufacturers DVD players or not, this >just an example). But does that part from "all persons..." cover the subscribers, participants, or posters of this dvd-discuss mailing list? -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 6 02:19:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA05042 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 02:19:11 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA05037 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 02:19:09 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:08:57 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 07:58:27 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 07:58:27 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001106075827.A27126@lemuria.org> References: <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105092629.A11175@inka.de> <00110522032506.00728@leopard.lan> <20001105200040.A25219@lemuria.org> <20001105121552.A1652@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001105121552.A1652@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 12:15:52PM -0700 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: > Note that the designers of CSS *could* have technologically tied (rather > than contractually tied) the scrambling to the region coding by having > different player keys for different regions. My *guess* (and it is a > guess), is that this was not done because it would make it harder to > shed region-coding if a locality (or perhaps the WTO) ruled that > region-coding was national-law or GATT illegal. the actual reason is somewhere in that WIPO document: the CE industry participants of this little conspiracy manufacture their players in, say, taiwan and then ship them worldwide. it would be an incredible logistical effort to manufacture player specifically for regions. in addition, we by now know (as opposed to suspect) that CSS is a technological measure for the express purpose of forcing everyone into a contract. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 6 02:19:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA05048 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 02:19:12 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA05041 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 02:19:11 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:08:57 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:09:27 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:09:27 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001106080927.B27126@lemuria.org> References: <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105092629.A11175@inka.de> <00110522032506.00728@leopard.lan> <20001105200040.A25219@lemuria.org> <200011052241.RAA22731@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200011052241.RAA22731@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 05:41:48PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Ummm... CSS exists as a "hook" for allowing the MPAA to require other, > distinct technical mechanisms. That doesn't mean that those > mechanisms are part of CSS proper. no, but the point can be argued (if you want), because CSS was created for the express purpose of forcing everyone into the CSS licensing scheme. therefore, we have two definitions of what CSS is: the narrow, technical one: a crappy encryption system. the broader one: a set of procedures and requirements that have to be part of every DVD player. > Besides, if you were to argue this way, you'd lose the important point > that DeCSS and licensed-CSS are functionally equivalent (because DeCSS > allows high-res digital display, doesn't incorporate region coding, > and generally doesn't comply with the license-restrictions-du-jour, > which change from time to time in any event...). I don't think so, if the stress is on *functional*. the whole point is that the region coding, no-digital-output and other restrictions DO NOT HAVE a function. they're arbitrary restrictions that can only be enforced through the CSS license. for what it's worth, they are equivalent to a requirement to, say, shift the blue aspect of all colors on the DVD up one bit, or a rule that DVD players may not display the time and date like (most) VHS players do. if there were a world-wide clock manufacturing monopoly the way there is a world-wide movie mafia, maybe we'd have seen restrictions along that line. in other words: these restrictions are complete bullshit and the only way the movie mafia can avoid that the CEI breaks away from the trust, telling them to shove their little scheme where the sun don't shine is by creating a technological front. now the only thing I wonder is how can one drive this point home to a judge so that it's as obvious to him as it is to me. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 6 07:14:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA07190 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 07:14:06 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA07187 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 07:14:04 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA24161 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 07:15:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A06A0EF.B016F3DC@mediaone.net> Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 07:15:43 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> <20001103181350.A1471@localhost> <20001104085951.A20080@lemuria.org> <200011042300.SAA17981@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105004821.B22926@lemuria.org> <200011051424.JAA21208@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: ... > > So you, as a consumer, don't have to worry your pretty little head > about whether you have one of those nasty unlicensed players. Edgar > Bronfman's roman legion of lawyers is there to make sure you don't, by > suing into oblivion anybody that might think of giving you one. > Aren't you happy? > ... Good. When the LiViD player comes to me via Debian I won't worry my pretty little head about it. Who are they going to go after? -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 6 09:17:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA07858 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:17:41 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA07855 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:17:40 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id JAA21192 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:19:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id JAA26429; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:19:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:19:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011061419.JAA26429@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001106080927.B27126@lemuria.org> References: <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105092629.A11175@inka.de> <00110522032506.00728@leopard.lan> <20001105200040.A25219@lemuria.org> <200011052241.RAA22731@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001106080927.B27126@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt writes: > > Besides, if you were to argue this way, you'd lose the important point > > that DeCSS and licensed-CSS are functionally equivalent (because DeCSS > > allows high-res digital display, doesn't incorporate region coding, > > and generally doesn't comply with the license-restrictions-du-jour, > > which change from time to time in any event...). > > I don't think so, if the stress is on *functional*. the whole point is that > the region coding, no-digital-output and other restrictions DO NOT HAVE a > function. they're arbitrary restrictions that can only be enforced through > the CSS license. Huh? That *is* a function --- the function of keeping people from watching DVDs in a way that the copyright holders don't like. One of enormous value to the studios. And one which is absent from DeCSS. To reiterate, if you define CSS so that "region coding" is part of it, then we *can no longer say* that CSS and DeCSS are functionally equivalent --- which is to say, that they do the same thing --- because the studios will be able to point to a clear, unambiguous case where they do not. And we lose the "perpetual patent" argument, which is based on pointing out that CSS and DeCSS are functionally equivalent. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 6 12:30:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA02817 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:30:45 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA02810 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:30:44 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:22:16 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:22:45 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:22:45 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001106182245.B28449@lemuria.org> References: <00110411534000.00797@leopard.lan> <20001104001904.B19089@lemuria.org> <20001103181350.A1471@localhost> <20001104085951.A20080@lemuria.org> <200011042300.SAA17981@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105004821.B22926@lemuria.org> <200011051424.JAA21208@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <3A06A0EF.B016F3DC@mediaone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A06A0EF.B016F3DC@mediaone.net>; from sphere1952@mediaone.net on Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 07:15:43AM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sphere wrote: > Good. When the LiViD player comes to me via Debian > I won't worry my pretty little head about it. Who > are they going to go after? the livid developers. one of them is already on trial in california. (matt is a named defendant there) -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 6 12:30:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA02811 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:30:44 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA02806 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:30:42 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:22:16 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:22:00 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:22:00 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001106182200.A28449@lemuria.org> References: <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105092629.A11175@inka.de> <00110522032506.00728@leopard.lan> <20001105200040.A25219@lemuria.org> <200011052241.RAA22731@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001106080927.B27126@lemuria.org> <200011061419.JAA26429@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200011061419.JAA26429@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 09:19:20AM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Huh? That *is* a function --- the function of keeping people from > watching DVDs in a way that the copyright holders don't like. One of > enormous value to the studios. um, I was defining "function" in a technical sense here. in that sense, I'd call this the *absence* of a function. but maybe we're in M$ territory again: "it's not a bug, it's a feature". > And we lose the "perpetual patent" argument, which is based on > pointing out that CSS and DeCSS are functionally equivalent. ok, I see your point. my point was that *CSS* is more than the algorithm itself, because it was created for purposes beyond it's actual functionality. that does not mean that said functionality can not be identical to what DeCSS does. example: you and I own the same car. you have a deal with your wife that you'll never drive faster than, say, 50 mph. I don't. the cars are still functionally identical. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 6 13:06:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA03329 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:06:59 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA03326 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:06:58 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id NAA01396 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:06:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id NAA27923; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:06:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:06:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011061806.NAA27923@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001106182200.A28449@lemuria.org> References: <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105092629.A11175@inka.de> <00110522032506.00728@leopard.lan> <20001105200040.A25219@lemuria.org> <200011052241.RAA22731@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001106080927.B27126@lemuria.org> <200011061419.JAA26429@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001106182200.A28449@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt writes: > "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > > Huh? That *is* a function --- the function of keeping people from > > watching DVDs in a way that the copyright holders don't like. One of > > enormous value to the studios. > > um, I was defining "function" in a technical sense here. in that sense, I'd > call this the *absence* of a function. but maybe we're in M$ territory > again: "it's not a bug, it's a feature". I was defining "function" in a technical sense too --- what a device does. The technical implementation of region coding requires active checks on the part of the player, which are part of the functional spec for the device. > > And we lose the "perpetual patent" argument, which is based on > > pointing out that CSS and DeCSS are functionally equivalent. > > ok, I see your point. my point was that *CSS* is more than the algorithm > itself, because it was created for purposes beyond it's actual > functionality. that does not mean that said functionality can not be > identical to what DeCSS does. Your point, it seems to me, is that the CSS technology was created for the sake of the CSS license agreement. What I can't figure out is why you think it's useful to erase the distinction between the two. If anything, that helps the other side, by allowing them to claim, for instance, that CSS technology provides copy protection when, in fact, it does nothing of the sort. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 6 15:35:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA04575 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:35:08 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA04568 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:35:06 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01583; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:46:55 GMT Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:46:55 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <200011061419.JAA26429@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Robert s. Thau writes: > To reiterate, if you define CSS so that "region coding" is part of it, > then we *can no longer say* that CSS and DeCSS are functionally > equivalent --- which is to say, that they do the same thing --- > because the studios will be able to point to a clear, unambiguous case > where they do not. > Luckily, I think the plaintiffs have missed the chance to argue this, as IIRC they stated in the lower court that regional lock *wasn't* part of CSS. I agree with RST that we need to preserve that point - it probably also makes it easier to argue our case in front of non-Techno judges if we can split the functionality of this complex beast into layers that are easier to understand and don't affect each others internal workings too much. A bit like a networking comms stack I suppose. Interestingly (again IIRC), the plaintiffs in the lower courts claimed that CSS wasn't an anti-piracy mechanism either. This (presumably) was done when they decided was too easy for the defence to show that a total bit-for-bit copy of a scrambled DVD was as good as the original, and thus CSS couldn't stop piracy. Having themselves disowned anti-piracy and region-lock from the list of things that CSS allegedly does, they don't leave much left to claim! They of course claim "access control" we claim "cartel enforcement" (amongst other things). -------------------------------------- P.S: Back on the intended subject matter of this thread ['Practical Magic' => ideas for in-court demos to illustrate the ridiculous nature of the plaintiff's claims]..... does anyone have any interesting ideas? It seems that discussion on this thread has shown that Kaplan hopes that his verdict in the lower court will serve to ban not just deCSS but anything else that looks like a DVD reader/player that's not from within the cartel. I suggested originally running the LiViD player (if enough of it works yet) in court alongside a windoze player from the cartel, and showing that according to the lower court, despite the fact that the disk is undeniably legally bought, playing it on one player is allegedly a crime and on the other it's OK. Obviously it will help the cause if LiViD's player is just a player and does not provide any other "features" like saving images to files. Or at least, that the "out of the box" player doesn't! Anyone got any other ideas for demos? Preferably, complementary to mine, or better than it! Looks like we can feel safe from plaintiffs launching a rival demo-session. They can't show that deCSS (or any other open source project) can lead to a playable pirate DVD because: 1) Recordable DVDs don't have the capacity to hold the data. 2) Commercial players won't play recordable media. 3) Recordable media costs 3 times what a genuine DVD costs - so what's the point? P's last attempt to demo illicit use of deCSS (to 'pirate' a DVD) hinged on the evidence from someone they paid to try and produce an *MP4* disk from a DVD. Any attempt by them to try repeating this ought to be poo-pooed by us, claiming: 1) An MP4 is hardly the 'pristine digital copy' that studios seem so scared of. 2) By the time the DVD comes out, no-one would want a crummy MP4 anyway. 3) Most MP4s seem to be mastered off back-of-the-theatre camcorders (same reason as 2) above. Some may originate from illegal telecineing of stolen cinema prints. 4) The quality loss in producing an MP4 means that a VHS tape would be just as good as a DVD for mastering purposes, and the VHS would probably be available first anyway. 5) Even if none of the above stood, a perfectly good MP4 would be produced by sticking the output of a cartel DVD player into any cheapo video capture card. If the Macrovision was a problem, macrovision strippers are available everywhere really cheap. 6) By way of example, the disks of Star Wars:TPM currently doing the rounds (not sure if we're talking VCDs or MP4s here) are obviously not mastered from DVDs as none exist (yet). -- Steve | Steve's law of House Rewiring: steve@equiinet.co.uk | "No matter how many power sockets Phone: +44 1792 540009 | you fit in a room, you will run Fax: +44 1792 295811 | out within the first week of use --------------------------------------------+ even if you took Steve's law of http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | House Rewiring into account" From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 6 15:35:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA04569 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:35:06 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA04564 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:35:00 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01591; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:54:54 GMT Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:54:54 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20001103165008.A17509@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt wrote: > > > demonstrate that you can't > > > burn the vobs on a DVD-R in a way that would lead to a playable disk. ask > > > the plaintiffs whether they know a way. > > > > Is that true? I'm told that quite a few European film-makers produce DVDs > > without CSS. > > yes, but they still use industry-grade DVD presses - not consumer-grade DVD > writers. see, on all DVDs you as a customer can buy in a shop, the > key-sector is pre-burned. without a key-sector, the DVD players will not > play it. > Really? I assumed that a non CSS-disk had no need of the key-sector, and thus one was able (in principle) to make a "home video" DVD. Obviously, running time would be limited by the capacity of the recordable disk. This is yet another cartel scandal that ought to be usable in court! How dare they tell me that I can't make home video disks to send to my parents (say). Meanwhile - what use do the non CSS disks make of the key-sector that makes *them* playable? -- Steve | Steve's law of House Rewiring: steve@equiinet.co.uk | "No matter how many power sockets Phone: +44 1792 540009 | you fit in a room, you will run Fax: +44 1792 295811 | out within the first week of use --------------------------------------------+ even if you took Steve's law of http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | House Rewiring into account" From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 6 16:36:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA05044 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:36:17 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA05041 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:36:16 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id QAA01736 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:36:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id QAA29786; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:36:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:36:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011062136.QAA29786@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: References: <200011061419.JAA26429@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Hosgood writes: > I agree with RST that we need to preserve that point - it probably > also makes it easier to argue our case in front of non-Techno > judges if we can split the functionality of this complex beast into > layers that are easier to understand and don't affect each others > internal workings too much. It may, particularly if some of the layers are defined to concern legal documents exclusively, and not technology. Some U.S. judges seem very skittish about dealing with evidence of a highly technical nature. An extreme case was the appellate panel that overruled Judge Jackson's restraining order against bundling IE4 with Win95[1]. Their stated grounds for overruling Jackson were, roughly, that bundling *might* have benefits for the consumer, and that software was such deep black magic that a mere judge couldn't possibly tell whether it did or it didn't without hearing all the evidence in a multi-year trial[2]. Which is one reason to argue that the case is really about the license agreement, and the plaintiffs' supposed right to impose it on all player manufacturers. Cryptography *is* deep black magic, which is easy for even techies to get wrong if they don't have a thorough background in the field. But a license agreement? That's a contract. Lawyers deal with contracts all the time. No big deal. Which suggests that there may be an advantage to trying to shift the case around so that it is more obviously about the license agreement, and the plaintiffs' supposed right to impose it on all player manufacturers... > A bit like a networking comms stack I suppose. Good analogy --- to people who know what a protocol stack is. rst [1] I'm not talking about his final judgment here; that came later, and the appeals court hasn't heard it yet. [2] This could be read as a reflection of their bias --- they were disposed to rule in favor of Microsoft, but the evidence did not favor the gentlemen from Redmond, so they found a convenient rationale for ignoring it. Which is significant, since we may well face a similar kind of bias ourselves, in favor of the captains of, well... industry. Still, making the case about a contract would at least deprive them of an excuse. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 6 23:29:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA16962 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 23:29:05 -0500 Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA16959 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 23:29:03 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02560 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:29:36 -0700 (MST) Received: from sessions.phx.primenet.com(206.132.239.114), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAeIaa.e; Mon Nov 6 21:29:29 2000 Received: from heorot.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@heorot.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.1]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA05898 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:28:52 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:23:22 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00110621285000.05838@heorot.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 06 Nov 2000, Steve Hosgood wrote: # Back on the intended subject matter of this thread ['Practical Magic' => ideas # for in-court demos to illustrate the ridiculous nature of the plaintiff's # claims]..... does anyone have any interesting ideas? # # It seems that discussion on this thread has shown that Kaplan hopes that his # verdict in the lower court will serve to ban not just deCSS but anything else # that looks like a DVD reader/player that's not from within the cartel. I # suggested originally running the LiViD player (if enough of it works yet) in # court alongside a windoze player from the cartel, and showing that according # to the lower court, despite the fact that the disk is undeniably legally # bought, playing it on one player is allegedly a crime and on the other it's OK. # # Obviously it will help the cause if LiViD's player is just a player and does # not provide any other "features" like saving images to files. Or at least, # that the "out of the box" player doesn't! # # Anyone got any other ideas for demos? Preferably, complementary to mine, or # better than it! Sounds like new evidence to me, but as long as you're asking... Run the licensed (S/W) player with a ripper making copies, LiViD straight-up. Point out that the ripper is *not* illegal, since it's just making a fair-use copy of a work to which, per the plaintiffs, access has been granted. LiViD, on the other hand, although NOT producing copies, is performing the original purpose of the licensed player without copy capability. -- | Engineers solve problems -- it's what we do. | | Do you want to be a problem? | | D. C. Sessions === dcs@lumbercartel.com | From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 03:30:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA19735 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 03:30:52 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id DAA19726 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 03:30:50 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:23:01 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:04:24 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:04:24 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001107090424.B30610@lemuria.org> References: <20001103165008.A17509@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 04:54:54PM +0000 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Hosgood wrote: > Really? I assumed that a non CSS-disk had no need of the key-sector, and thus > one was able (in principle) to make a "home video" DVD. Obviously, running > time would be limited by the capacity of the recordable disk. I'm fairly sure that I've got this right, but I'm always open to corrections from someone who knows better. > This is yet another cartel scandal that ought to be usable in court! How dare > they tell me that I can't make home video disks to send to my parents (say). nowhere in the constitution does it say that you have a *right* to use a technology the way you want. > Meanwhile - what use do the non CSS disks make of the key-sector that makes > *them* playable? most likely they burn information that says "this disk is unencrypted" there. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 03:30:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA19741 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 03:30:54 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id DAA19734 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 03:30:52 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:23:01 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:12:24 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:12:24 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001107091224.C30610@lemuria.org> References: <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105092629.A11175@inka.de> <00110522032506.00728@leopard.lan> <20001105200040.A25219@lemuria.org> <200011052241.RAA22731@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001106080927.B27126@lemuria.org> <200011061419.JAA26429@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001106182200.A28449@lemuria.org> <200011061806.NAA27923@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200011061806.NAA27923@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 01:06:55PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Your point, it seems to me, is that the CSS technology was created for > the sake of the CSS license agreement. exactly. quote from the WIPO document (page 13, bottom) "[...] a proposal for a copy protection method that: [...] would impose legally enforceable rules against unauthorized copying and transmission at a level acceptable to the motion picture industry through a private commercial licensing agreement." > What I can't figure out is why > you think it's useful to erase the distinction between the two. If > anything, that helps the other side, by allowing them to claim, for > instance, that CSS technology provides copy protection when, in fact, > it does nothing of the sort. my reason is that by turning it into a court-supported fact that CSS exists for the sole (or at least: main) purpose of enforcing the CSS license, the whole cartel argument flows extremely easily from that. if you have a long list of seperate items that "just happen" to reinforce each other, that argument is a lot more difficult to make. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 03:30:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA19727 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 03:30:52 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id DAA19722 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 03:30:48 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:23:01 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:02:01 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:02:01 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001107090201.A30610@lemuria.org> References: <200011061419.JAA26429@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <200011062136.QAA29786@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200011062136.QAA29786@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 04:36:18PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Which suggests that there may be an advantage to trying to shift the > case around so that it is more obviously about the license agreement, > and the plaintiffs' supposed right to impose it on all player > manufacturers... that's the point. this is why I've been arguing all the time that CSS *is* the CSS licensing scheme and not so much the high-school level encryption thing. and fortunately, the "smoking gun" WIPO document supports that view. and it was written by plaintiff's lawyers and consultants. they will have a real hard time debunking anything in that document. we just have to find a nice way to get it into evidence. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 06:46:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA22048 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:46:52 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA22045 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:46:50 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02567; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:46:52 GMT Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:46:52 GMT Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD Home Movies (was Re: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20001107090424.B30610@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt writes: > Steve Hosgood wrote: > > Really? I assumed that a non CSS-disk had no need of the key-sector, and thus > > one was able (in principle) to make a "home video" DVD. Obviously, running > > time would be limited by the capacity of the recordable disk. > > I'm fairly sure that I've got this right, but I'm always open to > corrections from someone who knows better. > No - I'll believe you. I've heard hints in this direction before, but nothing firm as in "an unencrypted disk needs 0xDEAD, 0xBEEF in words 0 and 1 of the key sector" or anything like that. > > This is yet another cartel scandal that ought to be usable in court! How dare > > they tell me that I can't make home video disks to send to my parents (say). > > > nowhere in the constitution does it say that you have a *right* to use a > technology the way you want. > > True maybe, but you and I don't live under the U.S. constitution anyway! DVD players are probably the first instance of a media player which is produced pre-crippled to prevent its users making their own media(*). OK, so for the first 10 years of its life, you couldn't exactly make your own CDs, but that was due to production technology difficulties which are now overcome. Many small bands now make their own CDs, and why shouldn't they? It's probably the case that almost no-one ever made their own 45 rpm or 33.3rpm records(**), but again that was due to physical manufacturing difficulties, not because the system was designed to stop you. I would say that making your own media to play on a player you bought was an example of "fair use". And this is being blocked by some random self- proclaimed U.S-based DVDCCA organisation. Trouble is, if DVD really is the first deliberately crippled playback technology, there won't be any legal precedent to say whether or not it is "fair" to expect a player that you buy will play your home-made media. Or is there? ------------------------------------ (*) No sure about MiniDisk. (**) I believe funfair sideshows sometimes offered "make your own 78 rpm disks" as a gimmick in the 1920's. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 08:47:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA23807 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:47:05 -0500 Received: from mail.travel-net.com (root@mail.travel-net.com [204.92.71.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA23803 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:47:02 -0500 Received: from travel-net.com (trj99.travel-net.com [207.176.160.99]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03871 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:47:01 -0500 Message-ID: <3A0807D1.248C685D@travel-net.com> Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 08:46:57 -0500 From: Dan Steinberg 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] DVD Home Movies (was Re: Practical magic) 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 Steve Hosgood wrote: > Tom Vogt writes: > > Steve Hosgood wrote: > > > Really? I assumed that a non CSS-disk had no need of the key-sector, and thus > > > one was able (in principle) to make a "home video" DVD. Obviously, running > > > time would be limited by the capacity of the recordable disk. > > > > I'm fairly sure that I've got this right, but I'm always open to > > corrections from someone who knows better. > > > > No - I'll believe you. I've heard hints in this direction before, but nothing > firm as in "an unencrypted disk needs 0xDEAD, 0xBEEF in words 0 and 1 of the > key sector" or anything like that. > > > > This is yet another cartel scandal that ought to be usable in court! How dare > > > they tell me that I can't make home video disks to send to my parents (say). > > > > > > nowhere in the constitution does it say that you have a *right* to use a > > technology the way you want. > > > > > > True maybe, but you and I don't live under the U.S. constitution anyway! > > DVD players are probably the first instance of a media player which is produced > pre-crippled to prevent its users making their own media(*). OK, so for the > first 10 years of its life, you couldn't exactly make your own CDs, but that > was due to production technology difficulties which are now overcome. Many > small bands now make their own CDs, and why shouldn't they? Actually home-use Digital Audio Tape (DAT) except for expensive commercial-grade recording gear, came crippled as well. This was a deliberate act to prevent 'unauthorized' copying of tapes. Readers will note that few cars or tape players are DAT-enabled. And DAT's the end of the story for that technology... > > > It's probably the case that almost no-one ever made their own 45 rpm or > 33.3rpm records(**), but again that was due to physical manufacturing > difficulties, not because the system was designed to stop you. > > I would say that making your own media to play on a player you bought was > an example of "fair use". And this is being blocked by some random self- > proclaimed U.S-based DVDCCA organisation. > > Trouble is, if DVD really is the first deliberately crippled playback > technology, there won't be any legal precedent to say whether or not it is > "fair" to expect a player that you buy will play your home-made media. See above. Its not the first. DAT predates mini-disc. > > > Or is there? > > ------------------------------------ > (*) No sure about MiniDisk. > (**) I believe funfair sideshows sometimes offered "make your own 78 rpm > disks" as a gimmick in the 1920's. > > -- > > Steve | > S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better > Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" > Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean > --------------------------------------------+ > http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@vrx.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 09:03:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA24087 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:03:36 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA24084 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:03:33 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id JAA29128 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:03:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id JAA05113; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:03:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:03:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011071403.JAA05113@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001107091224.C30610@lemuria.org> References: <200011042235.RAA17805@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001105092629.A11175@inka.de> <00110522032506.00728@leopard.lan> <20001105200040.A25219@lemuria.org> <200011052241.RAA22731@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001106080927.B27126@lemuria.org> <200011061419.JAA26429@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001106182200.A28449@lemuria.org> <200011061806.NAA27923@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107091224.C30610@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt writes: > > What I can't figure out is why > > you think it's useful to erase the distinction between the two. If > > anything, that helps the other side, by allowing them to claim, for > > instance, that CSS technology provides copy protection when, in fact, > > it does nothing of the sort. > > my reason is that by turning it into a court-supported fact that CSS exists > for the sole (or at least: main) purpose of enforcing the CSS license, the > whole cartel argument flows extremely easily from that. Of course --- the current "authority" draft is framed exactly like that. But you don't have to erase the distinction between the licensing agreement and the tech to make the point --- you just make it, quoting Marks, and then argue against the licensing regime, while just not talking about the tech. > if you have a long > list of seperate items that "just happen" to reinforce each other, that > argument is a lot more difficult to make. I really can't figure out what you're trying to say here... First, I don't see a long list. It's two items, with a thoroughly documented causal connection. Second, they don't "just happen" to reinforce each other; once again, there is documented intent. Besides, honestly, if you're worried about producing a persuasive argument, then it's a whole lot *easier* to just quote Marks saying "the tech exists solely to support the license agreement", then it is to somehow convince people that the two are the somehow the same thing. And again, if you somehow manage to establish your point, it works against you --- if you convince a court that CSS is copy control, you are probably giving CSS a legitimate purpose in the eyes of that court (which, please recall, is probably predisposed to favor big business, and to dismiss free-speech concerns not clearly in evidence as irrelevant hypotheticals, the way Kaplan brushed off fair use). Why else do you think the plaintiffs' briefs wax eloquent concerning the evils of copying, even though they aren't formally arguing 1201(b) at all? It is far more useful to establish that CSS technology, on its own, does absolutely *nothing* useful to anyone, and exists solely as a peg on which *arbitrary* other mechanisms can be hung, by means of the license agreement. If you get a judge to understand that, then the contradictions with the balance inherent in the whole fabric of copyright law (not just ours, anybody's) become instantly apparent. That's not something you want to throw away for the sake of a rhetorical flourish. [and later, in another msg]: > "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > > Which suggests that there may be an advantage to trying to shift the > > case around so that it is more obviously about the license agreement, > > and the plaintiffs' supposed right to impose it on all player > > manufacturers... > > that's the point. this is why I've been arguing all the time that CSS *is* > the CSS licensing scheme and not so much the high-school level encryption > thing. So argue against the licensing scheme, fercryinnout loud. That doesn't mean it's helpful to establish the *plaintiffs'* specious claim that it is somehow indistinguishable from the tech! rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 10:04:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA25744 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:04:11 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25741 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:04:09 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA02833; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:04:12 GMT Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:04:12 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <00110621285000.05838@heorot.lumbercartel.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu D. C. Sessions wrote: > On Mon, 06 Nov 2000, Steve Hosgood wrote: > # Anyone got any other ideas for demos? Preferably, complementary to mine, or > # better than it! > > Sounds like new evidence to me... > I'm just trawling for possible demos to support existing evidence, or to make obvious mockery of plaintiff's claims. I'm working on the theory that unless the judges are well into the techno talk, that they'd welcome some solid, practical demos done right in front of them to relieve the tedium! > but as long as you're asking... > > Run the licensed (S/W) player with a ripper making copies, LiViD straight-up. > Point out that the ripper is *not* illegal, since it's just making a fair-use > copy of a work to which, per the plaintiffs, access has been granted. LiViD, > on the other hand, although NOT producing copies, is performing the original > purpose of the licensed player without copy capability. > Thus showing that off-the-shelf (off-the-internet) ripper tools exist which can quite happily copy the contents of a DVD without resorting to any decryption in their own right (thus not in breach of DMCA). The code doing the decryption is likewise not in any breach of the DMCA because by the plaintiff's own (fatuous) arguments, it is "authorised" and thus OK. Not bad! I suspect that the plaintiffs would try and counterclaim that the ripper is "circumventing a protection" by reaching into another process's internal space. Would the DMCA cover that? -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 10:17:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA26081 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:17:19 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f151.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.151]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA26078 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:17:18 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 07:16:52 -0800 Received: from 128.244.34.133 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 07 Nov 2000 15:16:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [128.244.34.133] From: "Harold Eaton" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 10:16:52 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2000 15:16:52.0095 (UTC) FILETIME=[C1A908F0:01C048CD] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Robert S. Thau wrote: >And we lose the "perpetual patent" argument, which is based on >pointing out that CSS and DeCSS are functionally equivalent. I disagree. True patents often have multiple claims. CSS with region coding would probably be claim 3 or so of the DMCA "virtual perpetual patent" If DeCSS is prohibited, then it must necessarily infringe one of the virtual claims of the virtual patent, it need not infringe all of them. In simple terms, if DeCSS is prohibited, then there must be a "prepetual patent" on whatever it is that it does. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 11:08:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26620 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:08:22 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26617 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:08:19 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:16:09 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding News To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:16:07 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/06/2000 08:16:09 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ditto.....although it would be amusing it if did upload some code into the player.... "D. C. Sessions" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding News arvard.edu 11/03/00 11:23 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Fri, 03 Nov 2000, Daniel Richards wrote: > On Saturday 04 November 2000 14:33, you wrote: > > > Sony Quietly Codes DVDs to Defeat Popular > > Multi-Region Players > > By Ben Berkowitz > [snip stuff about regions/etc] > Does anyone know how this works exactly? Does it scan the DVD drive/player to > see if it can be set to different regions, or just checks to see if it > ignores region codes? Am I the only one who smells male bovine excreta? DVDs are purely passive devices, people. The disk itself, obviously, CANNOT do any checks on the player. The reporter(s) on this one seem to have gotten the story totally hosed. > Of course, if you have a DVD-drive, this is mute because you just decrypt the > DVD and watch it. > (Because really, we all know how useless and stupid the court's decison is) > DecVOB (linux only, im not sure.) will decrypt ANY DVD that uses standard > CSS. Whch you can get from below URL (That whole soverign > nation/juridstiction thing.) > Or http://leopard.osoal.org.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ incase my ISP decides to cave > :) > > > > -- > http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ - Kyh's DeCSS stuff > http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/DRpubkey.txt > "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a > puff of logic." -- | Engineers solve problems -- it's what we do. | | Do you want to be a problem? | | D. C. Sessions === dcs@lumbercartel.com | From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 11:29:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26931 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:29:22 -0500 Received: from dial107.roadrunner.com (sf-du107.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.107]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26928 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:29:19 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial107.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00832 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:19:37 -0700 Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:19:36 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001107091935.A786@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from haceaton@hotmail.com on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 10:16:52AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 10:16:52AM -0500, Harold Eaton wrote: > Robert S. Thau wrote: > > >And we lose the "perpetual patent" argument, which is based on > >pointing out that CSS and DeCSS are functionally equivalent. > > I disagree. True patents often have multiple claims. CSS with > region coding would probably be claim 3 or so of the DMCA > "virtual perpetual patent" If DeCSS is prohibited, then it must > necessarily infringe one of the virtual claims of the virtual > patent, it need not infringe all of them. The fact that region coding *could* have been implemented using region-specific player-keys rather than a "region-specific-player-bit" helps make the point that region coding is not part of the CSS "access control" from *either* the legal or the technological perspective. Technologically, the CSS-cartel could have made them related, but didn't. Legally, region-coding is simply private law (delegated via the s.1201 "plug-in"-its-a-feature-not-a-bug) overturning _L'anza v. Quality King_. I've thought for some time that a big part of the SDNY court's opinion depended in an essential way (but not an exclusive way) on this basic confusion between CSS the scrambler/descrambler, and contractual provision that require no digital outputs, macrovision on the analog outputs, etc. This technolgical confusion goes hand-in-hand with a basic confusion about the difference between 1201(a) vs. 1201(b) and 106(1). A certain part of the antidote to that poision is technical, but an essential part is also found in examining the policy rationales that s.1201, s.106, fair use and non-copyright use are ostensibly furthering. I believe there is a fundamental connection here to the constitutional and statutory requirement of "no prior restraint" --- it is no accident that the court's failure to obey principles of statutory construction in s.1201(a),(b) requires a grave violation of black-letter-law in placing ellipsis over "no prior restraint" in 1203(b)(1). > In simple terms, if DeCSS is prohibited, then there must be > a "prepetual patent" on whatever it is that it does. The point here is that the court doesn't see this as "patent-like" precisely because it is deeply confused about CSS-tech vs. license-imposed-tech. Yes, any ban leads to "patent-like" protection. But the courts will not understand what they are doing until they also understand that macrovision outputs, the absence of digital outputs and region coding are distinct technological measures that might or might not be present *depending on what some contract says*. Actually the problem is worse than it seems at first glance --- the court's comments about bank vaults and combinations show the confusion about access control vs. copy control is total. The court thinks that access control after initial acquisition is capable of doing something, anything, technolgically meaningful. Access *can't* do anything meaningful. Legally meaningful under s.1201 yes (the way the court "reads" the statute), but not technologically. To some extent this is surprising, because it is in conflict with the term of art "access" found in infringement litigation. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 11:28:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26922 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:28:46 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f219.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.219]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26919 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:28:45 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:28:18 -0800 Received: from 208.41.124.41 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 07 Nov 2000 16:28:18 GMT X-Originating-IP: [208.41.124.41] From: "Richard Ramos" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 16:28:18 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2000 16:28:18.0327 (UTC) FILETIME=[BC742270:01C048D7] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu All utilities I have seen decode the files into .vob but these are MPEG2 stream. You need a player that can play these streams. There are codecs avail. for this. Richard Ramos _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 11:34:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27141 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:34:00 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27138 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:34:00 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id LAA19294 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:34:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id LAA05974; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:34:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:34:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011071634.LAA05974@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Harold Eaton writes: [I'm responding out of order --- I think this point is the most important:] > In simple terms, if DeCSS is prohibited, then there must be > a "prepetual patent" on whatever it is that it does. Not at all! Take illegal cable decoders (a/k/a "black boxes") as an example --- any gizmo that lets you see a pay-per-view program without paying for it is prohibited. *Not* because the cable company has some sort of exclusive patent-like right to produce such gizmos, but simply because Congress passed a law saying that gizmos like that are illegal. They can do that. And the cable company's own set-top boxes don't contradict this; they are legal not because the cable company has an exclusive right to give out decoders for its programs, but rather, because the decoders they give out don't let you see the programs unless you pay. > I disagree. True patents often have multiple claims. CSS with > region coding would probably be claim 3 or so of the DMCA > "virtual perpetual patent" If DeCSS is prohibited, then it must > necessarily infringe one of the virtual claims of the virtual > patent, it need not infringe all of them. Well, if you define CSS as "whatever the CSS license agreement [whose? terms may differ] specifies this week", then what you clearly lose is the notion of DeCSS as simply an alternate implementation of CSS technology. Instead, you let the plaintiffs argue, as they do, that it is the moral equivalent of a cable descrambler --- not a legitimate article of commerce, something included in every licensed DVD player, but rather an evil thing which (as they argue) should be banned because of its *effects* (allowing consumers to bypass their use controls), on the analogy of a cable black box. They're blowing smoke, of course, but you played right into it --- and remember, the judges we're dealing with are probably inclined to follow their smoke signals given *any* halfway plausible excuse for doing so. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 11:42:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27284 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:42:58 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27280 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:42:54 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:42:45 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:42:43 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/07/2000 08:42:45 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 also provides the excuse for going after people using the DMCA rather than copyright law. Remember, the plaintiffs never did prove that there has been any illegal copying or distribution over the INTERNET. The fact is that the owners of the DVD have (or rather had until DMCA) every right to use DVD Rippers, DeCSS or whatever on their legally purchased copies. Now possession of that software is akin to carrying house breaking instruments by night in England, In some ways it is ironic. They got their verdict based upon law and speculation rather than any provable damages and the Librarian of Congress dismissed much of the comments on DMCA as speculative-which is exactly the reverse of what it should be! Tom Vogt Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) 11/07/00 12:32 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Your point, it seems to me, is that the CSS technology was created for > the sake of the CSS license agreement. exactly. quote from the WIPO document (page 13, bottom) "[...] a proposal for a copy protection method that: [...] would impose legally enforceable rules against unauthorized copying and transmission at a level acceptable to the motion picture industry through a private commercial licensing agreement." > What I can't figure out is why > you think it's useful to erase the distinction between the two. If > anything, that helps the other side, by allowing them to claim, for > instance, that CSS technology provides copy protection when, in fact, > it does nothing of the sort. my reason is that by turning it into a court-supported fact that CSS exists for the sole (or at least: main) purpose of enforcing the CSS license, the whole cartel argument flows extremely easily from that. if you have a long list of seperate items that "just happen" to reinforce each other, that argument is a lot more difficult to make. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 11:47:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27482 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:47:26 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27479 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:47:25 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:47:25 -0800 To: Message-Id: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:47:24 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/07/2000 08:47:25 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 doesn't prevent piracy, Only home recording and media shifting. That's part of Jack Valenti's lying. The Pirates don't need or care about CSS...bits is bits. Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LOC Rulemaking - DMCA arvard.edu Sponsor Critical 11/03/00 07:06 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 09:52:53AM -0700, John Zulauf wrote: >.... > The LoC has referred to the loss of our rights as an inconvenience. What is > needed to have standing to challenge that bit of unconstitutional nonsense? The studios and other copyright holders have argued that the DMCA is a positive incentive to creation of more new works, since it allows publishers to distribute free of 'piracy'. We need to attack this argument again and again and as hard as we can. The DMCA and other strong "intellectual property" laws do not give incentives to create new works--only authors can create new works, not publishers. And production and publishing have always in the Constitution been segregated away from the role of creation by authors--deliberately so, in order to prevent publishers from attaining monopolies any more complete than is necessary just to create works for the public domain. Note that the Constitution refers to "limited right" in the singular. The Constitution makes the balance, not Congress nor the courts. The LOC report simply parrots this line of the studios, that after the DMCA we will enjoy a true renaissance of video for consumers. In truth, it is only propping up an obsolete business model, and only temporarily. We should demand instead that Congress stop printing more new copyright laws, and just rescind what it has passed recently. These laws stand in the way of the technology of the Internet, and what will come in the future because of this technology. Otherwise we who use the Internet will be treated as an "inconvenience" standing in the way of e-commerce profits. I don't think it is impossible that this DeCSS case can raise the right issues for the DMCA to be declared unconstitutional. But if not then we have to keep trying. We might in the end be surprised to find that some wise corporations see that giving such powers to the current monopolies stands in the way of their own progress. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 11:47:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27475 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:47:17 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27472 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:47:16 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:47:15 -0800 To: Message-Id: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:47:14 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/07/2000 08:47:15 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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're right....I'm certain that the 1000 degree thingamabob does accelerate plant growth at a prescribed distance in cold climates Dan Steinberg To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici arvard.edu 11/03/00 03:22 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss C'mon, dont everyone pick on this one. It was *just* for hyperlight speed.. there was other claimed uses.......one of them might even work.... Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Check out the Hyperlight speed antenna patent....or any of Analytical > Graphics Inc's patents. > > > "Harold Eaton" > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici > arvard.edu > > > 11/02/00 10:04 AM > Please respond to > dvd-discuss > > > > Robert S. Thau wrote: > > >Well, I'm not sure that the courts are familiar with science in any > >form. But they are very unlikely to see the analogy here. What > >you're discussing is the development of scientific *theory*; the > >development of engineering *practice*, by contrast, has been bottled > >up in patents since the beginning of the republic. > > While patents do "bottle up" technology, they don't hide it too well. > In point of fact, obtaining a patent is supposed to require complete > disclosure of the technology being patented, and this makes the theory > and practice *knowledge* available to all as soon as the patent issues. > > This allows for someone else to immediately make improvements (and > possibly patent those for themselves). Copyrighting software without > publishing it is *nothing* like the patent process as far as advancement > of the useful arts is concerned. > > Of course many companies don't like the disclosure aspects to the > patent laws, and so avoid providing the real details of how they > do what they do, and the patent office often issues anyway. But this > is not the way patents are supposed to work. > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@vrx.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 11:57:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27820 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:57:08 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27814 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:57:05 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id LAA22712 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:57:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id LAA06030; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:57:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:57:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011071657.LAA06030@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001107091935.A786@localhost> References: <20001107091935.A786@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: > I've thought for some time that a big part of the SDNY court's opinion > depended in an essential way (but not an exclusive way) on this > basic confusion between CSS the scrambler/descrambler, and contractual > provision that require no digital outputs, macrovision on the analog > outputs, etc. This technolgical confusion goes hand-in-hand with a basic > confusion about the difference between 1201(a) vs. 1201(b) and 106(1). *Exactly*. Which is why perpetuating that confusion works for the other side, not for us. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 12:05:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28204 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:05:30 -0500 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 MAA28201 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:05:24 -0500 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 LAA25303 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:05:26 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A08448C.93EAF10B@uic.edu> Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:06:04 -0600 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] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > yes, but they still use industry-grade DVD presses - not consumer-grade > DVD writers. see, on all DVDs you as a customer can buy in a shop, the > key-sector is pre-burned. without a key-sector, the DVD players will not > play it. My understanding of the situation, which may be incorrect, is that on consumer media, zeroes are burned into the key-sector area. When a player encounters such a disk, it is supposed to then treat the VOB files as unencrypted. So, under this system, you can make home DVDs, but can't copy commercial DVDs onto blank media. Of course, if this is true, then one possible way to copy a commercial DVD onto blank media would be to run the VOB files through DeCSS, then burn the unencrypted files on consumer media. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 12:09:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28291 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:09:01 -0500 Received: from web6402.mail.yahoo.com (web6402.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.22.150]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA28288 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:09:00 -0500 Message-ID: <20001107170903.2315.qmail@web6402.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [207.1.61.112] by web6402.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:09:03 PST Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:09:03 -0800 (PST) From: Pete Broule Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS technology vs. license (was Re: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here's a suggestion for a line of argument: Whatever the names of the two, the CSS technology per se and the CSS licensing regime [plus CSS technology] are two different protection measures. CSS technology plus CSS licensing regime may well be a copy-protection measure. However, only the CSS technology per se is a *technological* protection measure. The CSS licensing regime is a *legal* measure, not a technological one. The two together are a combined technological/legal protection measure. The DMCA shouldn't be construed to grant protection to any measure just because it somehow employs technlology, even if an essential part of the measure is not technological in nature. If there's something here that merits the DMCA protection, it's only the CSS technology. (Even then, I say it doesn't, because it doesn't "effectively control access," but that's another issue.) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 12:11:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28390 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:11:12 -0500 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 MAA28387 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:11:11 -0500 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 LAA26736 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:11:15 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A0845E8.E64AD3AD@uic.edu> Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:11:53 -0600 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] Region Coding News Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 03 Nov 2000, Daniel Richards wrote: > Am I the only one who smells male bovine excreta? > > DVDs are purely passive devices, people. The disk itself, obviously, > CANNOT do any checks on the player. The reporter(s) on this one > seem to have gotten the story totally hosed. Apparently there is a sort of machine language. It is used for the little "extra" hidden things like secret games and features. Apparently when you put in a DVD, the player runs a little program which displays the menus and such. It isn't entirely passive. Most likely the original region code check was to query the player for its region code, check to make sure that the player has the right region code, then move on. Multiregion players would simply return a value of "Yes" for each region query. So what you do is write a slightly longer program to check each region and only allow the disk to play if the correct region, and only the correct region, returns "Yes". It seems to me that the presence of executable computer code on a video DVD should bring the playing of DVDs under section 117. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 12:12:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28422 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:12:40 -0500 Received: from dial107.roadrunner.com (sf-du107.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.107]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28419 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:12:37 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial107.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00980 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:02:52 -0700 Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:02:51 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001107100251.A934@localhost> References: <20001107091935.A786@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20001107091935.A786@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 09:19:36AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I should elaborate: On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 09:19:36AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: [ ... ] > I believe there is a fundamental connection here to the constitutional > and statutory requirement of "no prior restraint" --- it is no accident > that the court's failure to obey principles of statutory construction > in s.1201(a),(b) requires a grave violation of black-letter-law > in placing ellipsis over "no prior restraint" in 1203(b)(1). The court mentions both 1201(a) and 1201(b) in its opinion, and notes that plaintiffs rely on 1201(a), and their mention of 1201(b) in amended complaint and subsequent filings is not essential. However, the Final Judgment 3.(b) says: "CSS" means the Contents Scramble System used to encrypt, scramble or otherwise protect the contents of certain DVDs from being copied. "[C]opied"? So which is it? Is this access control or copy control? Is this a 1201(a) suit? or a 1201(b) suit? The fact that one can even ask such a question about the final judgment is astonishing. The reason one can ask is (at least) three fold: A. The court repeatedly violates statutory construction by effectively reading 1201(a) and 1201(b) to be identical. See above. B. The court hasn't a clue about the fact-technological situation (not withstanding the comment near the end of the opinion that all the facts could have been stipulated: the court contradicts itself by saying the CSS _prevents_ copying, but also that copying the audio portion of the DVD movie can be done with a tape recorder). C. The court's examination of copyright policy objectives is offensively sophmoric (Region coding is a natural thing because it allows Hollywood to enforce their segment-market release-schedule, first sale is only the right to resell the polycarbonate coaster that might happen to have a movie on it, the public right to access can be balanced against a particular technology that impedes copying, but there is no standing to raise fair use). The Congress has legitimate policy objectives in making some copying illegal, but it doesn't have a legitimate interest in restricting access after publication --- except to the extent that it is necessary to protect the policy of first-sale in an era where copies can be transmitted rather than transferred. Following _Harper & Row v. Nation_, first sale is the point beyond which use is guaranteed. Publication should be the point at which access is guaranteed, modulo first sale. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 12:27:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28688 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:27:08 -0500 Received: from dial107.roadrunner.com (sf-du107.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.107]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28685 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:27:04 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial107.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01007 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:17:22 -0700 Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:17:21 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001107101721.A996@localhost> References: <200011071634.LAA05974@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200011071634.LAA05974@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:34:03AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:34:03AM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > Harold Eaton writes: > > [I'm responding out of order --- I think this point is the most > important:] > > > In simple terms, if DeCSS is prohibited, then there must be > > a "prepetual patent" on whatever it is that it does. > > Not at all! Take illegal cable decoders (a/k/a "black boxes") as an > example --- any gizmo that lets you see a pay-per-view program without > paying for it is prohibited. *Not* because the cable company has some > sort of exclusive patent-like right to produce such gizmos, but simply > because Congress passed a law saying that gizmos like that are > illegal. They can do that. Is there any example of a limited prohibition on devices that control each and every access to a work that would not be patent-like? The reason I ask is that I think confusion between access controls that support the notion of authorized (individuals) and access control that apply to a communications channel (rather than stored data) may be part of the reaons why some judges see DeCSS as illegal descrambler. > And the cable company's own set-top boxes don't contradict this; they > are legal not because the cable company has an exclusive right to give > out decoders for its programs, but rather, because the decoders they > give out don't let you see the programs unless you pay. How does the notion of "authorized individual" apply to a set-top box? I see a clear meaning in the stored-data case. What is its meaning in the case of a communications channel that is not private? (A cable TV channel is not *precisely* the solution to the privacy problem, it safe-guards commerce by identifying the transmission of an authorization token with the exchange of payment-for-service). In other words, the cable company has no legitimate interest in whether I invite 20 of my friends over to watch my paid-up TV service. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 12:56:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29258 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:56:53 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA29255 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:56:51 -0500 Received: from ip177.bedford7.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.77.177]) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 13tCzN-0000Rf-00; Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:56:54 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Cc: danapark@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 13:02:32 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20001103165008.A17509@lemuria.org> 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 MAA29256 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:54:54 GMT, "Steve Hosgood" wrote: >Tom Vogt wrote: >> yes, but they still use industry-grade DVD presses - not consumer-grade DVD >> writers. see, on all DVDs you as a customer can buy in a shop, the >> key-sector is pre-burned. without a key-sector, the DVD players will not >> play it. >> > >Really? I assumed that a non CSS-disk had no need of the key-sector, and thus >one was able (in principle) to make a "home video" DVD. Obviously, running >time would be limited by the capacity of the recordable disk. > >This is yet another cartel scandal that ought to be usable in court! How dare >they tell me that I can't make home video disks to send to my parents (say). > >Meanwhile - what use do the non CSS disks make of the key-sector that makes >*them* playable? If you have a properly mastered UDF disc image that contains the files in the right place on the disc, it should play, no? see: http://www.mtc2000.com/dvd/faq.html and http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#5.7 I of course defer to the experts. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 12:59:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29402 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:59:35 -0500 Received: from dial244.roadrunner.com (sf-du244.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.244]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA29398 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:59:32 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial244.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01068 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:49:43 -0700 Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:49:43 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS technology vs. license (was Re: Practical magic) Message-ID: <20001107104943.A1029@localhost> References: <20001107170903.2315.qmail@web6402.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20001107170903.2315.qmail@web6402.mail.yahoo.com>; from pbroule@yahoo.com on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 09:09:03AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 09:09:03AM -0800, Pete Broule wrote: > Here's a suggestion for a line of argument: > Whatever the names of the two, the CSS technology per se and the CSS > licensing regime [plus CSS technology] are two different protection > measures. CSS technology plus CSS licensing regime may well be a > copy-protection measure. However, only the CSS technology per se is a > *technological* protection measure. The CSS licensing regime is a > *legal* measure, not a technological one. The two together are a Just to avoid confusion (not on your part of course), why don't we call this a "contractual" measure --- "legal" has connotations that may confuse some people about the legitimacy of that contract-by- gun-to-head > combined technological/legal protection measure. The DMCA shouldn't be > construed to grant protection to any measure just because it somehow > employs technlology, even if an essential part of the measure is not > technological in nature. If there's something here that merits the DMCA > protection, it's only the CSS technology. (Even then, I say it doesn't, > because it doesn't "effectively control access," but that's another issue.) Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 13:38:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30010 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:38:57 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA30007 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:38:55 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id NAA06720 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:38:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id NAA06953; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:38:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:38:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011071838.NAA06953@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001107100251.A934@localhost> References: <20001107091935.A786@localhost> <20001107100251.A934@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: > The court mentions both 1201(a) and 1201(b) in its opinion, and notes > that plaintiffs rely on 1201(a), and their mention of 1201(b) in amended > complaint and subsequent filings is not essential. As a footnote, the discrepancy between regard for the two is more extreme; Kaplan only mentions (b) in footnotes, and even there he says no more than that the plaintiffs cite it; he doesn't even say that he agrees with them that (b) applies to the case, let alone give a reason. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 13:47:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30203 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:47:47 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA30200 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:47:46 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id NAA08113 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:47:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id NAA07034; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:47:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:47:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011071847.NAA07034@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001107101721.A996@localhost> References: <200011071634.LAA05974@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107101721.A996@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: > > Not at all! Take illegal cable decoders (a/k/a "black boxes") as an > > example --- any gizmo that lets you see a pay-per-view program without > > paying for it is prohibited. *Not* because the cable company has some > > sort of exclusive patent-like right to produce such gizmos, but simply > > because Congress passed a law saying that gizmos like that are > > illegal. They can do that. > > Is there any example of a limited prohibition on devices that control > each and every access to a work that would not be patent-like? Well, there certainly can be programs that are available on pay-per-view TV and not otherwise. The only things that occur to me off the top of my head are boxing matches and those three PPV Olympic channels which NBC tried a few years ago, but as one of the last cavemen in the greater Boston area without cable, I might be just unaware of a better example. > The reason > I ask is that I think confusion between access controls that support > the notion of authorized (individuals) and access control that apply > to a communications channel (rather than stored data) may be part of > the reaons why some judges see DeCSS as illegal descrambler. I don't think so --- CSS doesn't support the notion of authorized individuals either, which is why I've argued that it should not be considered access control under 1201(a). But Kaplan's ruling effectively endorsed the Ps' "authorized device" interpretation of 1201(a), which they were quite explicit about in front of WIPO, if not in court --- even though he cited a report which clearly points toward an "authorized person" interpretation in support of his reasoning. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 14:57:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA31462 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:57:58 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f10.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.10]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA31459 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:57:55 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:57:29 -0800 Received: from 128.244.34.133 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:57:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [128.244.34.133] From: "Harold Eaton" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 14:57:29 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2000 19:57:29.0738 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5AD76A0:01C048F4] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Robert S. Thau wrote: >Harold Eaton writes: > >[I'm responding out of order --- I think this point is the most >important:] > > > In simple terms, if DeCSS is prohibited, then there must be > > a "prepetual patent" on whatever it is that it does. > >Not at all! Take illegal cable decoders (a/k/a "black boxes") as an >example --- any gizmo that lets you see a pay-per-view program without >paying for it is prohibited. *Not* because the cable company has some >sort of exclusive patent-like right to produce such gizmos, but simply >because Congress passed a law saying that gizmos like that are >illegal. They can do that. Um, NO. They can't do that, and maybe they haven't done that. If for example, the cable companies decided to use a female F-connector on their cable as the sole means for controlling access, they could not claim patent-like protection on cables (which mate to the connector) because the intent behind the manufacure and sale of those cables goes well beyond theft of cable service. This is an example that will even pass the onerous tests in the statute. The statute goes much further and casts a wide net outlawing devices, but constituionally they cannot provide patent-like protections of unlimited duration for devices, even ones that appear to have no other purpose than to steal cable TV. They could ban everyone from making such a device, I suppose, or regulate who may posses such devices, but they cannot give permission to those with "Authority" to make and sell (to anybody) something while baring those without authority, unless it is for an original invention, for a limited time, and promotes the progress of useful arts and science. Regardless of how you define CSS, those parts of DeCSS that have caused it to be banned can be an interchangeable part within CSS - and since the DVD CCA can legal make such parts, then there is the patent-like controls if we can't. It really doesn't matter what parts you include or exclude - if DeCSS is banable, while CSS is legitimate, then it must infringe some of the virtual claims in the virtual patent. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 15:22:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA31827 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:22:30 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA31824 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:22:28 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id PAA24200 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:22:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id PAA08732; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:22:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:22:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011072022.PAA08732@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Harold Eaton writes: > Robert S. Thau wrote: > >Not at all! Take illegal cable decoders (a/k/a "black boxes") as an > >example --- any gizmo that lets you see a pay-per-view program without > >paying for it is prohibited. *Not* because the cable company has some > >sort of exclusive patent-like right to produce such gizmos, but simply > >because Congress passed a law saying that gizmos like that are > >illegal. They can do that. > > Um, NO. They can't do that, and maybe they haven't done that. They can and they have --- well before the DMCA. The law to which I was referring is 47 USC 553(a), which states very specifically that: (1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law. (2) For the purpose of this section, the term ''assist in intercepting or receiving'' shall include the manufacture or distribution of equipment intended by the manufacturer or distributor (as the case may be) for unauthorized reception of any communications service offered over a cable system in violation of subparagraph (1). To the best of my knowledge, this is not a particularly controversial law, though as ever I'd welcome correction from people who know more about it. (If you thought I was referring to the DMCA and not to the specific ban on cable black boxes, my apologies --- I should have been more specific). rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 15:40:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA32120 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:40:28 -0500 Received: from dial145.roadrunner.com (sf-du145.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.145]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA32117 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:40:24 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial145.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01187 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:30:42 -0700 Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:30:41 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001107133041.A1151@localhost> References: <200011071634.LAA05974@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107101721.A996@localhost> <200011071847.NAA07034@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200011071847.NAA07034@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 01:47:50PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Robert S. Thau wrote: > Paul Fenimore writes: > > > Not at all! Take illegal cable decoders (a/k/a "black boxes") as an > > > example --- any gizmo that lets you see a pay-per-view program without > > > paying for it is prohibited. *Not* because the cable company has some > > > sort of exclusive patent-like right to produce such gizmos, but simply > > > because Congress passed a law saying that gizmos like that are > > > illegal. They can do that. > > > > Is there any example of a limited prohibition on devices that control > > each and every access to a work that would not be patent-like? > > Well, there certainly can be programs that are available on > pay-per-view TV and not otherwise. The only things that occur to me > off the top of my head are boxing matches and those three PPV Olympic > channels which NBC tried a few years ago, but as one of the last > cavemen in the greater Boston area without cable, I might be just > unaware of a better example. I guess the part that confuses me is that I don't see why pay-per-view is equivalent to authorized person(s). Sure, someone has to fork up the money for the transmission, but it doesn't matter too much who receives the transmission, so long as *the bill for transmission* has been paid (ok, there could easily be limits preventing people from making a "public performance" of the transmission, but I'm just not groking why that's the same as "authorized person"). On the other side of transmission vs. stored-data, it seems to me like a regulation or prohibition on devices is *always* equivalent to patent-like control, regardless of whether or not a court finds that prohibition on trafficking in devices to be "necessary" to controlling access (I'm not suggesting that a court would issue an injunction it though was unnecessary, I'm just trying to point out the difference between regulating the keys necessary for access, and a crypto-process necessary for access). > > The reason > > I ask is that I think confusion between access controls that support > > the notion of authorized (individuals) and access control that apply > > to a communications channel (rather than stored data) may be part of > > the reaons why some judges see DeCSS as illegal descrambler. > > I don't think so --- CSS doesn't support the notion of authorized > individuals either, which is why I've argued that it should not be > considered access control under 1201(a). There's no argument from me on that score. But if "DTT"="CSS"+111 did support the notion of authorized individuals, but was still applied to stored-data, wouldn't the court order regulating the "DTT" process still be patent like? Sure, the regulation of the process would be unnecessary, because only the keys would need to be confidential, but I don't think that would make such a court order any less patent-like. > But Kaplan's ruling effectively endorsed the Ps' "authorized device" > interpretation of 1201(a), which they were quite explicit about in > front of WIPO, if not in court --- even though he cited a report which > clearly points toward an "authorized person" interpretation in support > of his reasoning. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 16:05:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA32666 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:05:20 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA32663 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:05:12 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:04:50 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:04:49 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/07/2000 01:04:50 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Actually, the plaintiffs want to make this the LEGAL equivalent of a cable descrambler. If I use a cable descrambler then I am using it to defraud the cable company of revenues that I had agreed to pay. Morally, this is wrong. (legally too). If I use DeCSS to access a DVD, i am not defrauding the MPAA and its members of anything. They have been paid for the DVD. Their argument that they are being defrauded if I send the DVD to another region lacks moral force since I have the moral (and legal) right to do with my property as I choose. I also remain unconvinced that media shifting for my own personal use is morally equivalent to stealing. WHile they are entitled to payment for a single copy, I do not see any moral force behind their argument that they are entitled to payment for replacement copies, copies for different media. "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was arvard.edu Re: Amici) 11/07/00 10:27 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Harold Eaton writes: [I'm responding out of order --- I think this point is the most important:] > In simple terms, if DeCSS is prohibited, then there must be > a "prepetual patent" on whatever it is that it does. Not at all! Take illegal cable decoders (a/k/a "black boxes") as an example --- any gizmo that lets you see a pay-per-view program without paying for it is prohibited. *Not* because the cable company has some sort of exclusive patent-like right to produce such gizmos, but simply because Congress passed a law saying that gizmos like that are illegal. They can do that. And the cable company's own set-top boxes don't contradict this; they are legal not because the cable company has an exclusive right to give out decoders for its programs, but rather, because the decoders they give out don't let you see the programs unless you pay. > I disagree. True patents often have multiple claims. CSS with > region coding would probably be claim 3 or so of the DMCA > "virtual perpetual patent" If DeCSS is prohibited, then it must > necessarily infringe one of the virtual claims of the virtual > patent, it need not infringe all of them. Well, if you define CSS as "whatever the CSS license agreement [whose? terms may differ] specifies this week", then what you clearly lose is the notion of DeCSS as simply an alternate implementation of CSS technology. Instead, you let the plaintiffs argue, as they do, that it is the moral equivalent of a cable descrambler --- not a legitimate article of commerce, something included in every licensed DVD player, but rather an evil thing which (as they argue) should be banned because of its *effects* (allowing consumers to bypass their use controls), on the analogy of a cable black box. They're blowing smoke, of course, but you played right into it --- and remember, the judges we're dealing with are probably inclined to follow their smoke signals given *any* halfway plausible excuse for doing so. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 16:17:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA00443 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:17:21 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA00440 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:17:15 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:17:10 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding News To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:17:08 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/07/2000 01:17:10 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Thinks could get very exciting if they distributed a bunch of DVDs with some access control that acted very much like a virus because of some mistake. John Schulien Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding News 11/07/00 12:55 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Fri, 03 Nov 2000, Daniel Richards wrote: > Am I the only one who smells male bovine excreta? > > DVDs are purely passive devices, people. The disk itself, obviously, > CANNOT do any checks on the player. The reporter(s) on this one > seem to have gotten the story totally hosed. Apparently there is a sort of machine language. It is used for the little "extra" hidden things like secret games and features. Apparently when you put in a DVD, the player runs a little program which displays the menus and such. It isn't entirely passive. Most likely the original region code check was to query the player for its region code, check to make sure that the player has the right region code, then move on. Multiregion players would simply return a value of "Yes" for each region query. So what you do is write a slightly longer program to check each region and only allow the disk to play if the correct region, and only the correct region, returns "Yes". It seems to me that the presence of executable computer code on a video DVD should bring the playing of DVDs under section 117. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 16:30:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA00735 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:30:53 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA00731 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:30:51 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:15:12 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:41:00 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:41:00 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001107214100.C32060@lemuria.org> References: <20001105092629.A11175@inka.de> <00110522032506.00728@leopard.lan> <20001105200040.A25219@lemuria.org> <200011052241.RAA22731@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001106080927.B27126@lemuria.org> <200011061419.JAA26429@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001106182200.A28449@lemuria.org> <200011061806.NAA27923@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107091224.C30610@lemuria.org> <200011071403.JAA05113@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200011071403.JAA05113@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 09:03:36AM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > > if you have a long > > list of seperate items that "just happen" to reinforce each other, that > > argument is a lot more difficult to make. > > I really can't figure out what you're trying to say here... I'm saying that as long as these things are kept seperate, the plaintiffs can always say "oops. we didn't intend that, it's just a side-effect." > First, I don't see a long list. It's two items, with a thoroughly > documented causal connection. Second, they don't "just happen" to > reinforce each other; once again, there is documented intent. yes, and we can't point that out clearly enough. > Besides, honestly, if you're worried about producing a persuasive > argument, then it's a whole lot *easier* to just quote Marks saying > "the tech exists solely to support the license agreement", then it is > to somehow convince people that the two are the somehow the same > thing. agree > It is far more useful to establish that CSS technology, on its own, > does absolutely *nothing* useful to anyone, and exists solely as a peg > on which *arbitrary* other mechanisms can be hung, by means of the > license agreement. If you get a judge to understand that, then the > contradictions with the balance inherent in the whole fabric of > copyright law (not just ours, anybody's) become instantly apparent. well, this *is* what I want to do. I just take a slightly different (and maybe inferior) approach. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 16:30:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA00744 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:30:55 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA00739 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:30:53 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:15:12 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:44:17 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:44:16 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001107214416.D32060@lemuria.org> References: <00110621285000.05838@heorot.lumbercartel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 03:04:12PM +0000 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Hosgood wrote: > Not bad! I suspect that the plaintiffs would try and counterclaim that the > ripper is "circumventing a protection" by reaching into another process's > internal space. Would the DMCA cover that? the technical point is that they do, in fact, *not* circumvent anything. the windoze operating system is *designed* in a way that explicitly allows them to do what they are doing. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 16:30:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA00752 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:30:56 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA00745 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:30:55 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:15:12 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:48:59 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:48:59 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001107214859.E32060@lemuria.org> References: <20001107091935.A786@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001107091935.A786@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 09:19:36AM -0700 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: > > In simple terms, if DeCSS is prohibited, then there must be > > a "prepetual patent" on whatever it is that it does. > > The point here is that the court doesn't see this as "patent-like" precisely > because it is deeply confused about CSS-tech vs. license-imposed-tech. oh, we can do away with that part easily: region coding and CSS are definitely not related in any technical way. if they were, then one would depend on the other. however, we *do* have all four possible combinations: - region-coding and CSS - region-coding, but no CSS - region-free and no CSS - region-free, but CSS the only relationship that exists is that the *players* are required by the CSS *license* to honor region coding. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 16:30:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA00761 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:30:59 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA00756 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:30:57 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:15:12 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:53:12 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:53:12 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001107215312.F32060@lemuria.org> References: <200011071634.LAA05974@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200011071634.LAA05974@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:34:03AM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Not at all! Take illegal cable decoders (a/k/a "black boxes") as an > example --- any gizmo that lets you see a pay-per-view program without > paying for it is prohibited. what about using a home-build device, but *with* paying for the program? (ignoring technical difficulties for the moment). are they illegal, too? what is it that the law declares illegal? the use of "unauthorized" devices or the not-paying? > Instead, you let the plaintiffs argue, as they do, that it is the > moral equivalent of a cable descrambler --- not a legitimate article > of commerce, something included in every licensed DVD player, but > rather an evil thing which (as they argue) should be banned because > of its *effects* (allowing consumers to bypass their use controls), on > the analogy of a cable black box. the analogy drops dead after two steps. step one: DeCSS requires that I already have a copy of the DVD, it doesn't supply the content from thin air. step two: if I already have a copy, I have already paid (otherwise I'm already guilty of a crime, so no need to pass another law). -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 16:31:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA00769 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:31:01 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA00765 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:31:00 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:15:12 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:58:27 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:58:27 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS technology vs. license (was Re: Practical magic) Message-ID: <20001107215827.G32060@lemuria.org> References: <20001107170903.2315.qmail@web6402.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001107170903.2315.qmail@web6402.mail.yahoo.com>; from pbroule@yahoo.com on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 09:09:03AM -0800 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Pete Broule wrote: > Here's a suggestion for a line of argument: > Whatever the names of the two, the CSS technology per se and the CSS > licensing regime [plus CSS technology] are two different protection > measures. CSS technology plus CSS licensing regime may well be a > copy-protection measure. However, only the CSS technology per se is a > *technological* protection measure. The CSS licensing regime is a > *legal* measure, not a technological one. The two together are a > combined technological/legal protection measure. The DMCA shouldn't be > construed to grant protection to any measure just because it somehow > employs technlology, even if an essential part of the measure is not > technological in nature. If there's something here that merits the DMCA > protection, it's only the CSS technology. (Even then, I say it doesn't, > because it doesn't "effectively control access," but that's another issue.) I'd like to add something to the effect of: the plaintiff's are trying to exploit the DMCA by tying a large and complicated *legal* protection measure to a small and primitive *technological* p.m. and then asking the court to misread the law to cover the *legal* p.m. as well, just because they have artificially tied it to the actual *technological* p.m. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 16:31:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA00776 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:31:03 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA00772 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:31:02 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:15:12 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:59:22 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:59:22 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001107215922.H32060@lemuria.org> References: <3A08448C.93EAF10B@uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A08448C.93EAF10B@uic.edu>; from jms@uic.edu on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 12:06:04PM -0600 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Schulien wrote: > My understanding of the situation, which may be > incorrect, is that on consumer media, zeroes are > burned into the key-sector area. When a player > encounters such a disk, it is supposed to then treat > the VOB files as unencrypted. my understanding is different, but I'm not an expert and I don't own a dvd writer. does someone here on the list own a dvd writer? -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 16:30:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA00727 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:30:51 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA00723 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:30:50 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:15:12 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:38:00 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:38:00 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Home Movies (was Re: Practical magic) Message-ID: <20001107213800.B32060@lemuria.org> References: <20001107090424.B30610@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:46:52AM +0000 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Hosgood wrote: > True maybe, but you and I don't live under the U.S. constitution anyway! which I'm more and more happy about every passing day. > DVD players are probably the first instance of a media player which is produced > pre-crippled yes! > I would say that making your own media to play on a player you bought was > an example of "fair use". And this is being blocked by some random self- > proclaimed U.S-based DVDCCA organisation. no!!! this is *not* a problem of "fair use". you are not using someone else's copyrighted content, you are PRODUCING YOUR OWN. basically, in addition to an oligopoly on the player market, they're also trying to establish/maintain an oligopoly on the content market, by making the barriers-to-entry artificially high. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 17:02:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA01875 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:02:28 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA01872 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:02:27 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id RAA08899 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id RAA09745; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:02:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:02:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011072202.RAA09745@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001107215312.F32060@lemuria.org> References: <200011071634.LAA05974@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107215312.F32060@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt writes: > "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > > Not at all! Take illegal cable decoders (a/k/a "black boxes") as an > > example --- any gizmo that lets you see a pay-per-view program without > > paying for it is prohibited. > > what about using a home-build device, but *with* paying for the program? > (ignoring technical difficulties for the moment). are they illegal, too? > what is it that the law declares illegal? the use of "unauthorized" devices > or the not-paying? Well, IANAL, and this is not legal advice, but the last time we chewed this over, in September, the general consensus seemed to be that so long as your homebrew box doesn't bypass the cable operator's payment model, it's fine --- in particular, Eric Eldred noted that he doesn't use any equipment supplied by the company at all, but just wires his set up directly: http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg07760.html rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 17:12:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA02144 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:12:45 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA02141 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:12:45 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id RAA10515 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:12:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id RAA09932; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:12:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:12:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011072212.RAA09932@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS technology vs. license (was Re: Practical magic) In-Reply-To: <20001107215827.G32060@lemuria.org> References: <20001107170903.2315.qmail@web6402.mail.yahoo.com> <20001107215827.G32060@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt writes: > I'd like to add something to the effect of: > > the plaintiff's are trying to exploit the DMCA by tying a large and > complicated *legal* protection measure to a small and primitive > *technological* p.m. and then asking the court to misread the law to cover > the *legal* p.m. as well, just because they have artificially tied it to > the actual *technological* p.m. Ah, but now you're not going far enough ;-). The key point to establish, IMHO, is that the so-called "technological protection measure" doesn't actually protect anything at all --- the output of CSS decryption is raw digital video, and nothing about the technical measures that constitute CSS does anything at all to restrict the subsequent use of that video. The technical measure, in short, provides no protection. It isn't even supposed to. (The problem with your formulation is that when you say "small and primitive technological p.m.", that still leaves an implication that the technical measure is protecting something, somehow, even if crudely. But the technical crudeness of a tpm --- the difficulty one might face in defeating it --- is irrelevant to its legal protection under the DMCA. What brings CSS out of the scope of the DMCA is that by itself, it protects absolutely *nothing*). rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 17:37:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA02451 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:37:21 -0500 Received: from mail.travel-net.com (root@mail.travel-net.com [204.92.71.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA02448 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:37:20 -0500 Received: from travel-net.com (trj99.travel-net.com [207.176.160.99]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA28957 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:37:25 -0500 Message-ID: <3A08841E.127F58BC@travel-net.com> Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 17:37:18 -0500 From: Dan Steinberg 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] CSS technology vs. license (was Re: Practical magic) References: <20001107170903.2315.qmail@web6402.mail.yahoo.com> <20001107215827.G32060@lemuria.org> <200011072212.RAA09932@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu All this is true, but wasnt it already brought up (and ignored) at trial? "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Tom Vogt writes: > > > I'd like to add something to the effect of: > > > > the plaintiff's are trying to exploit the DMCA by tying a large and > > complicated *legal* protection measure to a small and primitive > > *technological* p.m. and then asking the court to misread the law to cover > > the *legal* p.m. as well, just because they have artificially tied it to > > the actual *technological* p.m. > > Ah, but now you're not going far enough ;-). > > The key point to establish, IMHO, is that the so-called "technological > protection measure" doesn't actually protect anything at all --- the > output of CSS decryption is raw digital video, and nothing about the > technical measures that constitute CSS does anything at all to > restrict the subsequent use of that video. > > The technical measure, in short, provides no protection. It isn't > even supposed to. > > (The problem with your formulation is that when you say "small and > primitive technological p.m.", that still leaves an implication that > the technical measure is protecting something, somehow, even if > crudely. But the technical crudeness of a tpm --- the difficulty one > might face in defeating it --- is irrelevant to its legal protection > under the DMCA. What brings CSS out of the scope of the DMCA is that > by itself, it protects absolutely *nothing*). > > rst -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@vrx.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 18:04:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA03121 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:04:03 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA03118 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:04:02 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id SAA17200 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:04:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id SAA10780; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:04:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:04:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011072304.SAA10780@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS technology vs. license (was Re: Practical magic) In-Reply-To: <3A08841E.127F58BC@travel-net.com> References: <20001107170903.2315.qmail@web6402.mail.yahoo.com> <20001107215827.G32060@lemuria.org> <200011072212.RAA09932@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <3A08841E.127F58BC@travel-net.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dan Steinberg writes: > All this is true, but wasnt it already brought up (and ignored) at trial? So we revisit it at the appellate level --- even Kaplan concedes that "CSS effectively controls access to a work" is a legal conclusion, and as such, the appeals court can reconsider it, so long as it doesn't consider evidence not on the trial record. Which does include fairly detailed accounts of the nature and function of CSS... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 18:13:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA03519 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:13:52 -0500 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 SAA03516 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:13:51 -0500 From: ravi_n@MIT.EDU 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 SAA26376 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:13:56 -0500 (EST) 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 SAA11296 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:13:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from biohazard-cafe.mit.edu (BIOHAZARD-CAFE.MIT.EDU [18.184.0.31]) by melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA12924 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:13:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (ravi_n@localhost) by biohazard-cafe.mit.edu (8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA10578; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:13:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:13:48 -0500 (EST) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <200011072202.RAA09745@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, 7 Nov 2000, Robert S. Thau wrote: > Tom Vogt writes: > > "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > > > Not at all! Take illegal cable decoders (a/k/a "black boxes") as an > > > example --- any gizmo that lets you see a pay-per-view program without > > > paying for it is prohibited. > > > > what about using a home-build device, but *with* paying for the program? > > (ignoring technical difficulties for the moment). are they illegal, too? > > what is it that the law declares illegal? the use of "unauthorized" devices > > or the not-paying? > > Well, IANAL, and this is not legal advice, but the last time we chewed > this over, in September, the general consensus seemed to be that so > long as your homebrew box doesn't bypass the cable operator's payment > model, it's fine --- in particular, Eric Eldred noted that he doesn't > use any equipment supplied by the company at all, but just wires his > set up directly: > > http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg07760.html > To make this point even stronger, remember that the prohibition on cable descramblers does not let cable companies authorize the things you can send their cable signal through, like the MPAA claims CSS lets them authorize the players that can read their movies. You can hook up whatever you want to your cable (whatever, TV, VCR, DVD player, Tivo, ReplayTV, splitters, amplifiers, ...) and you're cable company can't do much... - Ravi From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 7 18:32:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA03928 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:32:37 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA03923 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:32:31 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id SAA20475 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:32:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id SAA11146; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:32:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:32:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011072332.SAA11146@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001107133041.A1151@localhost> References: <200011071634.LAA05974@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107101721.A996@localhost> <200011071847.NAA07034@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107133041.A1151@localhost> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: > I guess the part that confuses me is that I don't see why pay-per-view > is equivalent to authorized person(s). Sure, someone has to fork up the > money for the transmission, but it doesn't matter too much who receives > the transmission, so long as *the bill for transmission* has been paid Well, the set-top box is physically in the home of a person who gets billed for PPV programs ordered through that box. Sure, there's nothing that prevents that person from inviting his buddies over. But in password-based access control to, say, the Wall Street Journal online (clearly an "authorized person" situation), there's nothing that physically prevents a person from redistributing articles that they obtained --- or, for that matter, just giving out the password. I'm not sure what would satisfy you. Biometrics? > On the other side of transmission vs. stored-data, it seems to me > like a regulation or prohibition on devices is *always* equivalent to > patent-like control, regardless of whether or not a court finds that > prohibition on trafficking in devices to be "necessary" to controlling > access Errrmmm... perhaps we're defining terms differently. What I mean by "patent-like monopoly" is that there is one entity which has the exclusive, legal monopoly right to manufacture a device, or to determine who else may do so. The cable descrambler ban isn't like that --- nothing about the law prevents you from building a functioning work-alike for a cable company's in-home equipment. In other words, it doesn't establish a legal monopoly at all. What you can't build is something which *fails* to be a work-alike, by letting you view PPV programs without the first 'P' (payment). rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 04:01:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA11478 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:01:01 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA11468 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:01:00 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:50:46 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:45:28 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:45:28 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001108094528.D1733@lemuria.org> References: <200011071634.LAA05974@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107101721.A996@localhost> <200011071847.NAA07034@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107133041.A1151@localhost> <200011072332.SAA11146@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200011072332.SAA11146@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 06:32:35PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Errrmmm... perhaps we're defining terms differently. What I mean by > "patent-like monopoly" is that there is one entity which has the > exclusive, legal monopoly right to manufacture a device, or to > determine who else may do so. the breaking point might not be in DeCSS. how about *encoding* ? as long as the plaintiffs works are involved, they will always play the "it's just piracy" game. but what if I want to create my own CSS-encoded DVDs, without a license? plaintiffs claim that I need a CSS license, but they don't say *why*. the only answer with legal support I can think of would be patent law. but there is no patent on CSS. in other words: the DVD pressing industry has been screwed as well, having payed for licenses without value. in fact, the more I think about it the more volatile the DVD trust appears to me. the movie mafia is the only player in the game that has a real advantage. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 04:01:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA11485 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:01:03 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA11482 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:01:02 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:50:46 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:50:46 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:50:46 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS technology vs. license (was Re: Practical magic) Message-ID: <20001108095046.E1733@lemuria.org> References: <20001107170903.2315.qmail@web6402.mail.yahoo.com> <20001107215827.G32060@lemuria.org> <200011072212.RAA09932@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200011072212.RAA09932@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 05:12:49PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > The key point to establish, IMHO, is that the so-called "technological > protection measure" doesn't actually protect anything at all --- the > output of CSS decryption is raw digital video, and nothing about the > technical measures that constitute CSS does anything at all to > restrict the subsequent use of that video. > > The technical measure, in short, provides no protection. It isn't > even supposed to. it *is* supposed to, or at least the plaintiffs claim that it is. it might also be a difficult point, because the encryption actually *does* prohibit access to the DVD contents, because you need to unscramble them first. I think the point that CSS is so weak that you can as well ignore it's protective function (i.e. it is "not effective") is easier to make than the more philosophical point that even while appearing to be, it is not actually a protection at all. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 04:01:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA11471 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:01:01 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA11464 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:00:58 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:50:46 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:41:02 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:41:02 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001108094102.C1733@lemuria.org> References: <200011072202.RAA09745@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from ravi_n@MIT.EDU on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 06:13:48PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu ravi_n@MIT.EDU wrote: > To make this point even stronger, remember that the prohibition on > cable descramblers does not let cable companies authorize the things > you can send their cable signal through, like the MPAA claims CSS > lets them authorize the players that can read their movies. You can > hook up whatever you want to your cable (whatever, TV, VCR, DVD player, > Tivo, ReplayTV, splitters, amplifiers, ...) and you're cable company > can't do much... so: should we include that in the amici? -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 04:36:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA12052 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:36:51 -0500 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 EAA12049 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:36:41 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 13tReq-0005J5-00; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:36:40 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 13tRes-0000Bn-00; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:36:42 +0100 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:36:42 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001108103642.A31693@inka.de> References: <200011071634.LAA05974@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107101721.A996@localhost> <200011071847.NAA07034@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107133041.A1151@localhost> <200011072332.SAA11146@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001108094528.D1733@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20001108094528.D1733@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 09:45:28AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 09:45:28AM +0100, Tom Vogt wrote: > the breaking point might not be in DeCSS. how about *encoding* ? as long as > the plaintiffs works are involved, they will always play the "it's just > piracy" game. but what if I want to create my own CSS-encoded DVDs, without > a license? > > plaintiffs claim that I need a CSS license, but they don't say *why*. the > only answer with legal support I can think of would be patent law. but > there is no patent on CSS. in other words: the DVD pressing industry has > been screwed as well, having payed for licenses without value. in fact, the > more I think about it the more volatile the DVD trust appears to me. the > movie mafia is the only player in the game that has a real advantage. An even more blatnt examble here would be Macrovision. Content providers are required to pay Macrovision royalties for setting a few bits in their VOB files which cause players to impose Macrovision on the output. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "If your business model is selling water in the desert and it starts to rain, you'd better find a different business model." (Ian Clarke) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 11:00:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16750 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:00:46 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16747 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:00:43 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id LAA18457 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:00:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id LAA15062; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:00:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:00:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011081600.LAA15062@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS technology vs. license (was Re: Practical magic) In-Reply-To: <20001108095046.E1733@lemuria.org> References: <20001107170903.2315.qmail@web6402.mail.yahoo.com> <20001107215827.G32060@lemuria.org> <200011072212.RAA09932@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001108095046.E1733@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt writes: > > The technical measure, in short, provides no protection. It isn't > > even supposed to. > > it *is* supposed to, or at least the plaintiffs claim that it is. They can claim whatever they like, but that doesn't make it fact. In particular, this argument: > it might > also be a difficult point, because the encryption actually *does* prohibit > access to the DVD contents, because you need to unscramble them first. is, IMHO, pretty clearly bogus --- as we've been through before, you also need to go through MPEG decompression, rasterization, and D/A conversion (among other processes) in order to produce a display visible to a human. Simply because you need to go through those processes to produce a visible display, that doesn't make them access controls in any sense. (Well, not unless you buy the plaintiffs' "authorized device" interpretation of 1201(a), in which case any of them could be --- but that's giving the game away). Another dangerous argument is this: > I think the point that CSS is so weak that you can as well ignore it's > protective function (i.e. it is "not effective") is easier to make than the > more philosophical point that even while appearing to be, it is not > actually a protection at all. The relevant definition is that of "effective access control" in 1201(a)(3)(B) --- it's defined as a single, atomic term which can't be parsed, at least not in the context of the law. If you look at that definition, you'll see that the definition has only to do with what a technical measure does "in the ordinary course of its operation", and not with how easy it is to divert it into another course. The defense in New York tried very briefly to argue this, early on, while they were still a bit confused about how to interpret the law, but they dropped it completely in their final law brief, because it's a very ineffective argument --- so ineffective that even though they had dropped it, Kaplan spent a page or two refuting it anyway, just to make them look silly. Best to stay away from this one. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 11:05:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16951 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:05:24 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16948 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:05:22 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id LAB19065 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:05:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id LAA15075; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:05:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:05:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011081605.LAA15075@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001108094528.D1733@lemuria.org> References: <200011071634.LAA05974@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107101721.A996@localhost> <200011071847.NAA07034@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107133041.A1151@localhost> <200011072332.SAA11146@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001108094528.D1733@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt writes: > "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > > Errrmmm... perhaps we're defining terms differently. What I mean by > > "patent-like monopoly" is that there is one entity which has the > > exclusive, legal monopoly right to manufacture a device, or to > > determine who else may do so. > > the breaking point might not be in DeCSS. how about *encoding* ? as long as > the plaintiffs works are involved, they will always play the "it's just > piracy" game. but what if I want to create my own CSS-encoded DVDs, without > a license? I've seen this argument before, but I've never seen the point, unless you can demonstrate how your interests are concretely harmed by not being able to make your disk. Otherwise, it strikes me as a likely case of de minimis non curat lex; with no concrete injury, there's nothing for a court to remedy. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 11:05:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16933 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:05:02 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f211.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.211]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16930 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:05:01 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:04:37 -0800 Received: from 128.244.34.133 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 08 Nov 2000 16:04:37 GMT X-Originating-IP: [128.244.34.133] From: "Harold Eaton" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:04:37 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2000 16:04:37.0585 (UTC) FILETIME=[9809DC10:01C0499D] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu rst wrote: >They can and they have --- well before the DMCA. The law to which I >was referring is 47 USC 553(a), which states very specifically that: ...snip ... > (2) For the purpose of this section, the term ''assist in > intercepting or receiving'' shall include the manufacture or > distribution of equipment intended by the manufacturer or > distributor (as the case may be) for unauthorized reception of > any communications service offered over a cable system in > violation of subparagraph (1). > >To the best of my knowledge, this is not a particularly controversial >law, though as ever I'd welcome correction from people who know more >about it. This plays precisely into my point - THIS law requires INTENT OF THEFT - DMCA goes even further and says if it doesn't have other SIGNIFICANT commercial purpose it can be banned regardless of intent. IMHO, 553(a) is constitutional, while the DMCA is not because the former does not grant patent-like monopolies, while the latter does. Just to make this clear, I do not disagree that it is easier to keep the technology and contract provisions separate, but rolling them together does not turn the unconstitional unlimited patent-like monoply argument into a falacy - it just makes it easier to be confused, but the argument is still COMPLETELY sound. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 11:19:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA17240 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:19:03 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f67.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.67]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17237 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:19:02 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:18:37 -0800 Received: from 128.244.34.133 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 08 Nov 2000 16:18:37 GMT X-Originating-IP: [128.244.34.133] From: "Harold Eaton" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:18:37 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2000 16:18:37.0835 (UTC) FILETIME=[8CDDD5B0:01C0499F] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt wrote: >the breaking point might not be in DeCSS. how about *encoding* ? as long as >the plaintiffs works are involved, they will always play the "it's just >piracy" game. but what if I want to create my own CSS-encoded DVDs, without >a license? > >plaintiffs claim that I need a CSS license, but they don't say *why*. the >only answer with legal support I can think of would be patent law. but >there is no patent on CSS. in other words: the DVD pressing industry has >been screwed as well, having payed for licenses without value. in fact, the >more I think about it the more volatile the DVD trust appears to me. the >movie mafia is the only player in the game that has a real advantage. This has been brought up before on this list, but CSS *is* patented. The claims are fairly weak, but if they cover anything, it is the production of scrambled DVDs, not the descrambling. In this regard, the pressing industry may indeed have no choice. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 11:18:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA17233 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:18:46 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17230 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:18:45 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:18:41 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:18:39 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/08/2000 08:18:41 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Presumably the homebuilt device is "legal" to possess but illegal to use since it defrauds the cable company of revenue. The question that arises under the DMCA and the 2600 court case is "Is it legal to pass on the information?" As schematics? Or as computer code? Tom Vogt Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) 11/07/00 01:59 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Not at all! Take illegal cable decoders (a/k/a "black boxes") as an > example --- any gizmo that lets you see a pay-per-view program without > paying for it is prohibited. what about using a home-build device, but *with* paying for the program? (ignoring technical difficulties for the moment). are they illegal, too? what is it that the law declares illegal? the use of "unauthorized" devices or the not-paying? > Instead, you let the plaintiffs argue, as they do, that it is the > moral equivalent of a cable descrambler --- not a legitimate article > of commerce, something included in every licensed DVD player, but > rather an evil thing which (as they argue) should be banned because > of its *effects* (allowing consumers to bypass their use controls), on > the analogy of a cable black box. the analogy drops dead after two steps. step one: DeCSS requires that I already have a copy of the DVD, it doesn't supply the content from thin air. step two: if I already have a copy, I have already paid (otherwise I'm already guilty of a crime, so no need to pass another law). -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 11:20:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA17380 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:20:37 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17377 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:20:36 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id LAA20983 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:20:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id LAA15140; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:20:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:20:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011081620.LAA15140@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Harold Eaton writes: > IMHO, [47 USC] 553(a) is > constitutional, while the DMCA is not because the former does not grant > patent-like monopolies, while the latter does. No disagreement at all; if I had more room in the authority draft, I'd be citing 553(a) as an example of how to do it right (particularly since the Judiciary analysis cites it favorably, claiming that the DMCA itself follows "the same approach"). I was only contesting your earlier claim that: > In simple terms, if DeCSS is prohibited, then there must be > a "prepetual patent" on whatever it is that it does. A gizmo can be prohibited for all sorts of reasons, many of which involve no grant of exclusive rights to any entity (viz. the descrambler ban, cars with the wrong sorts of emissions, lock-picks, etc.). rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 11:36:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA17624 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:36:30 -0500 Received: from dial223.roadrunner.com (sf-du223.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.223]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17621 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:36:27 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial223.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00817 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:26:41 -0700 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:26:41 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CSS technology vs. license (was Re: Practical magic) Message-ID: <20001108092640.C663@localhost> References: <20001107170903.2315.qmail@web6402.mail.yahoo.com> <20001107215827.G32060@lemuria.org> <200011072212.RAA09932@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001108095046.E1733@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20001108095046.E1733@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 09:50:46AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 09:50:46AM +0100, Tom Vogt wrote: > "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > > The key point to establish, IMHO, is that the so-called "technological > > protection measure" doesn't actually protect anything at all --- the > > output of CSS decryption is raw digital video, and nothing about the > > technical measures that constitute CSS does anything at all to > > restrict the subsequent use of that video. > > > > The technical measure, in short, provides no protection. It isn't > > even supposed to. > > it *is* supposed to, or at least the plaintiffs claim that it is. it might > also be a difficult point, because the encryption actually *does* prohibit > access to the DVD contents, because you need to unscramble them first. But the point is that s.1201(a) only cares about "effective access control". Ineffective access control gets *zero* protection from s.1201(a). CSS is ineffective, consequently CSS should not be protected by s.1201(a). What Robert Thau was saying is that *in addition*, CSS is not protected by s.1201(b). CSS should find no protection anywhere in chapter 12. Only by going in a tight little circle, confusing effective access control with limitations of the exercise of exclusive rights *and* confusing technological measures with contractual measures can one arrive at the conclusion that CSS is "protecting" something. (And in this circumstance it does: it protects the the patent-like injunction, import-export monopolies, stage-release schedules, etc. It also destroys constitutional rights of the general public, and it actively hinders the constitutionally mandated objective of "promote progress"). The moral of the story is that any discussion of "protection" has better say whether it is talking about effective access control or limitations on the exercise of exclusive rights, and the discussion had better only apply to technological measures. > I think the point that CSS is so weak that you can as well ignore it's > protective function (i.e. it is "not effective") is easier to make than the > more philosophical point that even while appearing to be, it is not > actually a protection at all. Strength or weakness are (very explicitly) not criteria for determining if the access control is legally "effective". Yes, this is stupid. But it is not the fault of the US courts. The law was written that way by the US Congress. To recap: 0. Classification matters. 1. 1201(a) Technological measures that effectively control access to a work. Every word in the preceding sentence is an *essential* part of the specification: lose any of "technological measure", "effectively", "control access", or "work" and s.1201(a) should no longer apply. 2. 1201(b) Technological measures that limit the exercise of an exclusive right. Again, every word matters. If a technological measure "limits the exercise of" access to a work, 1201(b) should not care. Neither should 1201(a). 3. Attributes of an access control (perhaps more?): (i) Effectiveness == authorized persons. The statute cares about this aspect of things. (ii) Strength == good engineering. The statute doesn't care about this aspect of things. For this reason, the statute promotes *in*security. Same as BXA crypto-"export" regs. (iii) Stored-data vs. transmitted data == applies after first sale vs. independent of first sale. The statute probably has a constitutional obligation to care about this. The statute fails to care. So far as I know, these attributes ("3.") make a linearly independent spanning basis to describe the legal aspects of access controls. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 11:37:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA17687 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:37:53 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17683 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:37:52 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:37:52 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:37:51 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/08/2000 08:37:51 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 movie mafia is the only player in the game that has a real advantage." I think you get the picture... As for the DVD pressing industry you are quite correct. A coworker consults with a company that made laserdisks and now is into pressing DVDs. He told me that TimeWarnerInc owns the largest DVD pressing plant. They only give the company he consults with enough to keep them in business to handle the times they need more capacity but not enough to see that they grow into a competitor. What's more how can the consumer electronics industry fuel another orgy of consumer spending like they did with CD players if they can't put in new features that people want (e.g., FAST FORWARD...COMMERCIAL SKIP, DIGITAL OUTPUT, ANALOG OUTPUT). While there is some merit in having a 100, 200 or 500 CD player, Who would want a 500 DVD player with random movie shuffle? Tom Vogt Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) 11/08/00 01:02 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Errrmmm... perhaps we're defining terms differently. What I mean by > "patent-like monopoly" is that there is one entity which has the > exclusive, legal monopoly right to manufacture a device, or to > determine who else may do so. the breaking point might not be in DeCSS. how about *encoding* ? as long as the plaintiffs works are involved, they will always play the "it's just piracy" game. but what if I want to create my own CSS-encoded DVDs, without a license? plaintiffs claim that I need a CSS license, but they don't say *why*. the only answer with legal support I can think of would be patent law. but there is no patent on CSS. in other words: the DVD pressing industry has been screwed as well, having payed for licenses without value. in fact, the more I think about it the more volatile the DVD trust appears to me. the movie mafia is the only player in the game that has a real advantage. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 11:37:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA17639 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:37:32 -0500 Received: from dtphost.diamtech.com (dtphost.diamtech.com [207.70.87.155]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17636 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:37:30 -0500 Received: from chgpivotal1.diamtech.com (pivmail.diamtech.com [207.70.104.25]) by dtphost.diamtech.com (Build 98 8.9.3/NT-8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01793 for ; Wed, 08 Nov 2000 10:42:43 -0600 Received: from alum.mit.edu (207.79.36.2 [207.79.36.2]) by chgpivotal1.diamtech.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id TVRK6RHV; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:36:22 -0600 Message-ID: <3A09812B.E04AA63E@alum.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 10:36:59 -0600 From: Ravi Nanavati X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) References: <200011081620.LAA15140@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Harold Eaton writes: > > IMHO, [47 USC] 553(a) is > > constitutional, while the DMCA is not because the former does not grant > > patent-like monopolies, while the latter does. > > No disagreement at all; if I had more room in the authority draft, I'd > be citing 553(a) as an example of how to do it right (particularly > since the Judiciary analysis cites it favorably, claiming that the > DMCA itself follows "the same approach"). What would you have to cut to get it in? I think it is a big deal to get in the analogy to 553(a) because it gives the judges a way to look at the DMCA (cable descrambler law on the Internet) that works out well for us. - Ravi From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 11:45:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA17895 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:45:17 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17892 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:45:16 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:44:25 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:44:24 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/08/2000 08:44:25 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Also, the clauses in DMCA that relate to "significant commercial purpose" are so vague as to be meaningless. How does one follow a law in which any activity other than buying and playing DVDs on "official" players has to be adjudicated in court. "Harold Eaton" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was arvard.edu Re: Amici) 11/08/00 08:06 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss rst wrote: >They can and they have --- well before the DMCA. The law to which I >was referring is 47 USC 553(a), which states very specifically that: ...snip ... > (2) For the purpose of this section, the term ''assist in > intercepting or receiving'' shall include the manufacture or > distribution of equipment intended by the manufacturer or > distributor (as the case may be) for unauthorized reception of > any communications service offered over a cable system in > violation of subparagraph (1). > >To the best of my knowledge, this is not a particularly controversial >law, though as ever I'd welcome correction from people who know more >about it. This plays precisely into my point - THIS law requires INTENT OF THEFT - DMCA goes even further and says if it doesn't have other SIGNIFICANT commercial purpose it can be banned regardless of intent. IMHO, 553(a) is constitutional, while the DMCA is not because the former does not grant patent-like monopolies, while the latter does. Just to make this clear, I do not disagree that it is easier to keep the technology and contract provisions separate, but rolling them together does not turn the unconstitional unlimited patent-like monoply argument into a falacy - it just makes it easier to be confused, but the argument is still COMPLETELY sound. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 14:18:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA20703 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:18:20 -0500 Received: from charon.cargill.com (charon.cargill.com [167.136.225.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA20700 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:18:14 -0500 Received: from hermes.cargill.com (hermes.cargill.com [167.136.226.140]) by charon.cargill.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA22572 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:18:17 -0600 (CST) Received: from cdmpls02m.cdpoly.cargill.com (cdmpls02m.cdpoly.cargill.com [10.25.1.21]) by hermes.cargill.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA19002 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:18:16 -0600 (CST) Received: by cdmpls02m.cdpoly.cargill.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:16:11 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Kroll, Dave" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:16:10 -0600 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 >So, under this system, you can make home DVDs, >but can't copy commercial DVDs onto blank media. > >Of course, if this is true, then one possible way >to copy a commercial DVD onto blank media would >be to run the VOB files through DeCSS, then burn >the unencrypted files on consumer media. Or you could just point your DVD-camcorder at the HDTV screen, and keep the dog from barking for 90 minutes. :-) I suppose future CSS versions will include movie watermarks that cause a DVD-camcorder to shut off. (Maybe I shouldn't joke!) David Kroll QA Coordinator 612-882-6452 Dave_Kroll@cdpoly.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 15:34:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21637 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:34:25 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA21634 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:34:23 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:34:20 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:34:17 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/08/2000 12:34:19 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That's not a joke. Read about the secure music initiative. Read some of Jack Valenti's press. Read some of the articles in the trade magazines (e.g., Electronic Design) where they are developing systems that encrypt at the screen. The facts are that there are people who very much desire the creation of a technological tyranny. "Kroll, Dave" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) 11/08/00 11:20 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss >So, under this system, you can make home DVDs, >but can't copy commercial DVDs onto blank media. > >Of course, if this is true, then one possible way >to copy a commercial DVD onto blank media would >be to run the VOB files through DeCSS, then burn >the unencrypted files on consumer media. Or you could just point your DVD-camcorder at the HDTV screen, and keep the dog from barking for 90 minutes. :-) I suppose future CSS versions will include movie watermarks that cause a DVD-camcorder to shut off. (Maybe I shouldn't joke!) David Kroll QA Coordinator 612-882-6452 Dave_Kroll@cdpoly.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 15:40:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21788 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:40:44 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA21784 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:40:42 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 21:29:55 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:52:05 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:52:05 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001108185205.A3019@lemuria.org> References: <200011071634.LAA05974@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107101721.A996@localhost> <200011071847.NAA07034@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001107133041.A1151@localhost> <200011072332.SAA11146@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20001108094528.D1733@lemuria.org> <200011081605.LAA15075@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200011081605.LAA15075@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 11:05:28AM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > I've seen this argument before, but I've never seen the point, unless > you can demonstrate how your interests are concretely harmed by not > being able to make your disk. Otherwise, it strikes me as a likely > case of de minimis non curat lex; with no concrete injury, there's > nothing for a court to remedy. the whole purpose is to show (again, and again, and again) that this lawsuit is not about piracy. but I see your point and you're right, I can't think of any reason why I really would want to use CSS. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 15:43:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21927 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:43:39 -0500 Received: from dial197.roadrunner.com (sf-du197.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.197]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA21922 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:43:36 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial197.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01138 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:33:55 -0700 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:33:54 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Watermarking Message-ID: <20001108133354.A1068@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from Dave_Kroll@cargill.com on Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 01:16:10PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 01:16:10PM -0600, Kroll, Dave wrote: > >So, under this system, you can make home DVDs, > >but can't copy commercial DVDs onto blank media. > > > >Of course, if this is true, then one possible way > >to copy a commercial DVD onto blank media would > >be to run the VOB files through DeCSS, then burn > >the unencrypted files on consumer media. > > > Or you could just point your DVD-camcorder at the HDTV > screen, and keep the dog from barking for 90 minutes. :-) > > I suppose future CSS versions will include movie watermarks that > cause a DVD-camcorder to shut off. (Maybe I shouldn't joke!) That may have been intended as a joke, but it isn't. This is how the _Streambox_ court ruled --- that failure to honor some data bits was circumvention. _Streambox_ seems to establish a clear precedent for holding camcorders that ignore watermarking to be circumvention devices. The most bizarre part of these "circumvention" rulings is that they effectively reverse a series of ruling, including _Sony_, _Harper & Row v. Nation_, yet the courts involved don't seem to skip a beat over issues like "consent to a reasonable use". Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 16:12:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA22397 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:12:10 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA22394 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:12:07 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:12:09 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Watermarking To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:12:08 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/08/2000 01:12:09 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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's amazing how large the gulf is becoming between the technologically knowledgable and the technologically ignorant.... Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Watermarking arvard.edu 11/08/00 12:49 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 01:16:10PM -0600, Kroll, Dave wrote: > >So, under this system, you can make home DVDs, > >but can't copy commercial DVDs onto blank media. > > > >Of course, if this is true, then one possible way > >to copy a commercial DVD onto blank media would > >be to run the VOB files through DeCSS, then burn > >the unencrypted files on consumer media. > > > Or you could just point your DVD-camcorder at the HDTV > screen, and keep the dog from barking for 90 minutes. :-) > > I suppose future CSS versions will include movie watermarks that > cause a DVD-camcorder to shut off. (Maybe I shouldn't joke!) That may have been intended as a joke, but it isn't. This is how the _Streambox_ court ruled --- that failure to honor some data bits was circumvention. _Streambox_ seems to establish a clear precedent for holding camcorders that ignore watermarking to be circumvention devices. The most bizarre part of these "circumvention" rulings is that they effectively reverse a series of ruling, including _Sony_, _Harper & Row v. Nation_, yet the courts involved don't seem to skip a beat over issues like "consent to a reasonable use". Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 16:23:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA24285 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:23:53 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA24282 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:23:50 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:22:58 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:22:57 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/08/2000 01:22:58 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "de minimis non curat lex" Yes. That has been one puzzling aspect to Kaplan's ruling and from some of his comments during the trial I suspect was puzzling him too. At least he didn't let them collect their exhorbitant legal fees. IN fact, that doctrine underlies much of the problems with laws such as the DMCA. What are the damages? The damages only occur when there is copying and distribution. Actually, Jack Valenti's analogy with house breaking almost has a grain of truth. A better analogy is that the DMCA makes it illegal to carry house breaking instruments by night. I've always had problems with that particular type of law. Tom Vogt Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) 11/08/00 12:43 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > I've seen this argument before, but I've never seen the point, unless > you can demonstrate how your interests are concretely harmed by not > being able to make your disk. Otherwise, it strikes me as a likely > case of de minimis non curat lex; with no concrete injury, there's > nothing for a court to remedy. the whole purpose is to show (again, and again, and again) that this lawsuit is not about piracy. but I see your point and you're right, I can't think of any reason why I really would want to use CSS. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 16:50:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA24618 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:50:45 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA24615 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:50:42 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:39:54 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:38:15 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:38:15 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Message-ID: <20001108223815.A3476@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Dave_Kroll@cargill.com on Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 01:16:10PM -0600 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Kroll, Dave" wrote: > Or you could just point your DVD-camcorder at the HDTV > screen, and keep the dog from barking for 90 minutes. :-) which is one of the reasons the CSS license disallows digital output (i.e. HDTV). no joke. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 17:33:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA25318 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:33:53 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA25315 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:33:46 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:33:35 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:33:33 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/08/2000 02:33:35 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 raises an interesting question. Thanks to the Clinton Administrations desire for more Spectrum to sell, they have mandated that in 5 years the whole country switches over to Advanced TV which is digital (never mind the fact that only if millions buy them will the price MAY drop to $1500 and converter boxes to $300 and When people find this out as more stations change over, there will probably be an outcry). How will the DVDs interface with the newer TVs? Does it even make sense? Or is this just another planned obsolescence to keep people buying the latest and greatest consumer electronics? Your $10,000 HDTV or $1500 ATV you bought last year doesn't give you the true digital DVD experience since it uses NSTC video signals....so now you have to buy the HDTV-ATV-DVD C O M B O with secure encryption everywhere! Tom Vogt Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) 11/08/00 01:53 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss "Kroll, Dave" wrote: > Or you could just point your DVD-camcorder at the HDTV > screen, and keep the dog from barking for 90 minutes. :-) which is one of the reasons the CSS license disallows digital output (i.e. HDTV). no joke. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 8 18:51:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA26285 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:51:11 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA26282 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:51:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA17830 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:51:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:51:17 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) 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, 8 Nov 2000 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > This raises an interesting question. Thanks to the Clinton Administrations > desire for more Spectrum to sell, they have mandated that in 5 years the > whole country switches over to Advanced TV which is digital (never mind the > fact that only if millions buy them will the price MAY drop to $1500 and > converter boxes to $300 and When people find this out as more stations > change over, there will probably be an outcry). How will the DVDs interface > with the newer TVs? Does it even make sense? Or is this just another > planned obsolescence to keep people buying the latest and greatest consumer > electronics? Your $10,000 HDTV or $1500 ATV you bought last year doesn't > give you the true digital DVD experience since it uses NSTC video > signals....so now you have to buy the HDTV-ATV-DVD C O M B O with secure > encryption everywhere! > > Component Video? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 9 01:52:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA31756 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:52:57 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA31753 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:52:50 -0500 Received: from ip92.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.10.92]) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 13tlZx-000749-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 09 Nov 2000 01:52:58 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 01:58:41 -0500 Message-ID: <6fhk0tch36to66mf6sgp7h76g5tdmhro5n@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 BAA31754 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:33:33 -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >This raises an interesting question. Thanks to the Clinton Administrations >desire for more Spectrum to sell, they have mandated that in 5 years the >whole country switches over to Advanced TV which is digital (never mind the This deadline was then softened to "until 85% of viewers have adopted HDTV." Of course this lengthens the lease on free spectrum for about 25 years. This recently led to Chairman Kennard's suggestion to impose fees for non-compliance by 2006. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/News_Releases/2000/nrmc0044.html >fact that only if millions buy them will the price MAY drop to $1500 and >converter boxes to $300 and When people find this out as more stations >change over, there will probably be an outcry). How will the DVDs interface >with the newer TVs? Does it even make sense? Or is this just another Most new TVs should offer either component and/or S-video connections (preferably accessible on the front of the set.) These are needed by both still photographers and digital videographers. >planned obsolescence to keep people buying the latest and greatest consumer >electronics? Your $10,000 HDTV or $1500 ATV you bought last year doesn't >give you the true digital DVD experience since it uses NSTC video >signals....so now you have to buy the HDTV-ATV-DVD C O M B O with secure >encryption everywhere! While HDTV provides a huge boost in quality, its adoption is certainly not guaranteed. Let us first embrace SDTV. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 9 10:41:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA06495 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:41:50 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA06492 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:41:49 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:41:25 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:41:23 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/09/2000 07:41:24 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 an ass! ......the guy doesn't realize that they are broadcasting HDTV to pretty much NOBODY. I really don't care about the "quality" of HDTV when the quality of network programming sucks. Why pay $1500 for a set that there is nothing I want to watch showing on it. As for more public service announcements....gee...that was one of the requirments for having a broadcasting license until fairly recently when broadcasters, the government, and most of the public came to believe that the stations OWNED the spectrum and were not leasing it from the FCC....Clearly clueless about what's going on Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was arvard.edu Re: Amici) 11/08/00 10:55 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:33:33 -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >This raises an interesting question. Thanks to the Clinton Administrations >desire for more Spectrum to sell, they have mandated that in 5 years the >whole country switches over to Advanced TV which is digital (never mind the This deadline was then softened to "until 85% of viewers have adopted HDTV." Of course this lengthens the lease on free spectrum for about 25 years. This recently led to Chairman Kennard's suggestion to impose fees for non-compliance by 2006. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/News_Releases/2000/nrmc0044.html >fact that only if millions buy them will the price MAY drop to $1500 and >converter boxes to $300 and When people find this out as more stations >change over, there will probably be an outcry). How will the DVDs interface >with the newer TVs? Does it even make sense? Or is this just another Most new TVs should offer either component and/or S-video connections (preferably accessible on the front of the set.) These are needed by both still photographers and digital videographers. >planned obsolescence to keep people buying the latest and greatest consumer >electronics? Your $10,000 HDTV or $1500 ATV you bought last year doesn't >give you the true digital DVD experience since it uses NSTC video >signals....so now you have to buy the HDTV-ATV-DVD C O M B O with secure >encryption everywhere! While HDTV provides a huge boost in quality, its adoption is certainly not guaranteed. Let us first embrace SDTV. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 9 14:54:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA09541 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:54:33 -0500 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 OAA09538 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:54:31 -0500 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 NAA18570 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:54:40 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A0B0F37.74F1B8ED@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 14:55:19 -0600 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] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=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 timely. Slashdot has an article today about a new PC video card that can not only receive HDTV signals, but can also dump the MPEG-2 data stream (7.7 Gigs/Hour) directly to your hard drive! The price is $399.00, which isn't so bad, considering that this turns your computer into not only a HDTV display, but also a video recorder. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/11/09/067217 This may well be the type of hardware that kick-starts HDTV. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 9 15:00:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA09762 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:00:08 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA09758 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:00:06 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA30867 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:14:34 -0800 Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:14:34 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) Message-ID: <20001109131434.H18248@duskglow.com> References: <3A0B0F37.74F1B8ED@uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3A0B0F37.74F1B8ED@uic.edu>; from jms@uic.edu on Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 02:55:19PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu And the MPAA legal team. On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 02:55:19PM -0600, John Schulien wrote: > How timely. Slashdot has an article today about a new PC > video card that can not only receive HDTV signals, but > can also dump the MPEG-2 data stream (7.7 Gigs/Hour) > directly to your hard drive! The price is $399.00, which > isn't so bad, considering that this turns your computer into > not only a HDTV display, but also a video recorder. > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/11/09/067217 > > This may well be the type of hardware that kick-starts > HDTV. -- Russell (James) 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 Nov 9 16:27:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11532 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:27:50 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11529 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:27:43 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:27:21 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:27:19 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/09/2000 01:27:21 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu HDTV on a computer monitor? What's the point? It's like the TV tuners you can get that can put a 2" x 3" TV screen on your monitor...Why bother? Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards arvard.edu (was: Practical magic) 11/09/00 12:04 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss And the MPAA legal team. On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 02:55:19PM -0600, John Schulien wrote: > How timely. Slashdot has an article today about a new PC > video card that can not only receive HDTV signals, but > can also dump the MPEG-2 data stream (7.7 Gigs/Hour) > directly to your hard drive! The price is $399.00, which > isn't so bad, considering that this turns your computer into > not only a HDTV display, but also a video recorder. > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/11/09/067217 > > This may well be the type of hardware that kick-starts > HDTV. -- Russell (James) 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 Nov 9 16:34:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11720 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:34:17 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11717 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:34:16 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:33:57 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:33:55 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/09/2000 01:33:57 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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've got the ADTV specs somewhere and remember that here are provisions for encryption and access control...Oh....they are going to have fun with that one too. Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards arvard.edu (was: Practical magic) 11/09/00 12:04 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss And the MPAA legal team. On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 02:55:19PM -0600, John Schulien wrote: > How timely. Slashdot has an article today about a new PC > video card that can not only receive HDTV signals, but > can also dump the MPEG-2 data stream (7.7 Gigs/Hour) > directly to your hard drive! The price is $399.00, which > isn't so bad, considering that this turns your computer into > not only a HDTV display, but also a video recorder. > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/11/09/067217 > > This may well be the type of hardware that kick-starts > HDTV. -- Russell (James) 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 Nov 9 18:16:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA13334 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:16:06 -0500 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 SAA13331 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:16:04 -0500 Received: from [209.46.107.185] ([209.46.107.185] verified) by cyclesoftware.com (Stalker SMTP Server 1.8b6) with ESMTP id S.0000725141 for ; Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:15:48 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: steve_bryan@mail.mac.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:14:30 -0600 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: steve bryan Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) 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 >HDTV on a computer monitor? What's the point? It's like the TV tuners you >can get that can put a 2" x 3" TV screen on your monitor...Why bother? You may not have seen a DVD on a 22" Apple Cinema Display (no, I can't afford one either)? Being able to view HDTV content for an added $400 rather than $3500 is the main point even if it just fills a 17" monitor. I know DVD's look impressive and I imagine HDTV would be even more (I've added a usb/wireless remote control and surround sound speakers to my setup). Of interest to this group is the ability to time shift using increasingly less expensive hard drives and the spectre (from the viewpoint of MPAA) of archiving to something portable (DVD-RAM?). There has been considerable work and discussion around potential standards like 5C for encrypting content but with all the foot dragging we now have Hollywood's "nightmare" to be made available by mid December. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 9 18:23:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA13561 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:23:14 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA13551 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:23:13 -0500 Received: from ip111.bedford9.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.79.111]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 13u12R-0003OV-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:23:24 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:29:09 -0500 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 SAA13558 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:27:19 -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > >HDTV on a computer monitor? What's the point? It's like the TV tuners you >can get that can put a 2" x 3" TV screen on your monitor...Why bother? It's probably the first HDTV most of us will buy--a nice match for a 19" monitor. Most of those tuners can also play full-screen, or even on the desktop background. One great feature of the All-in-wonder is thumbnails for the channels. While I agree 1080i format is overkill for most purposes it's part of a DV revolution that is very useful in general. I do expect some problems when these cards come out, even though current analog TV receivers can save NTSC to MPEG-2 now. I guess Hollywood only cares about 720 pixels and above(?) __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 9 18:36:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA14021 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:36:14 -0500 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 SAA14003 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:36:13 -0500 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 RAA05808 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:36:23 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A0B4330.8DD25E86@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:37:04 -0600 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] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Michael Rolenz writes: > HDTV on a computer monitor? What's the point? > It's like the TV tuners you can get that can put a > 2" x 3" TV screen on your monitor...Why bother? Because an HDTV signal has so much information that it blows even DVD away. 7.7 GB/hour. This card has a computer monitor setting of 1024 x 768. Compare a good, sharp 1024 x 768 picture on your computer monitor to a television picture. Unlike NTSC TV tuner cards, which are limited by the ancient broadcast standards, HDTV tuners are going to produce a signal that exceeds DVD quality. We're talking night and day. Those NTSC tuner video cards are a nifty little gimmick. This looks like the real deal. Full, high resolution digital video. No "access control" crap to make life miserable for consumers. Steve Bryan writes: > There has been considerable work and discussion > around potential standards like 5C for encrypting > content but with all the foot dragging we now have > Hollywood's "nightmare" to be made available by > mid December. Exactly. By putting a fully non-access-controlled standard on the market, they may well destroy any market for crippled hardware that uses encryption to prevent you from recording the signal, just like unrestricted MP3 has permanently and completely destroyed the market for copy protected music, although the RIAA is still frantically applying CPR to the cold corpse in the form of the SDMI. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 9 18:39:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA14234 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:39:13 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA14231 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:39:12 -0500 Received: from ip111.bedford9.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.79.111]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 13u1Hu-0003Xm-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:39:22 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:45:08 -0500 Message-ID: <9ddm0t4v9503sot751df5aplm5pagjhla1@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 SAA14232 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >I do expect some problems when these cards come out, even though >current analog TV receivers can save NTSC to MPEG-2 now. I guess >Hollywood only cares about 720 pixels and above(?) > ps. The fact that the all in wonder card hasn't been the death of the content industry should be a lesson regarding DeCSS. The fact is that AeRoSol and his buddies are rare individuals--and certainly cinema buffs-- that spend hours and entire nights compressing feature films bound for IRC. Most of us couldn't be bothered. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 9 18:53:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA14729 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:53:54 -0500 Received: from sphmraaa.compuserve.com (hs-img-rel-1.compuserve.com [149.174.177.156]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA14726 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:53:53 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by sphmraaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id SAA17784 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:53:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from mic667 (sfr-tgn-yyh-vty50.as.wcom.net [216.192.16.50]) by sphmraaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id SAA17741; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:53:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:26:12 -0800 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The MPAA has the protection for its RegionCode enforcement. While the MPAA's argues it wants to control movie release windows around the world, I doubt that this is really the issue. Firstly, why are movies not released worldwide the same day? (As it was the case for "StarWars -- The Phantom Menace") Mostly, to allow time for dubbing or creating and providing extra subtitles. If the different release windows really were an issue then it would had been already noticed. (Videocassettes don't have the protection, and most players and TV sets in Europe and Asia are offered multi-standard.) But, there are no issues -- people like to get their dubbed versions! I think Regioncodes are more like a trade barrier; MPAA does not like to see films made from (companies of) other countries being sold here. Get the competition out! OR, is it a censorship? I am a German native, and I like to enjoy movies from my home country. However, with the spirit of the RegionCode I were not allowed to enjoy any movies (on DVD) from Germany. And, as you can guess, it is highly unlikely these will be ever published in the USA with RegionCode 1. I feel like living in the communist block countries where strong censorship prohibits import of foreign news, movies, etc. Welcome to the dark ages!?? In a couple countries Regioncodes is outlawed. Free Speech protection, and you have already purchased all rights to view a movie when you bought the DVD. Here, in the USA, it seems that Free Speech protection is only a tool for big money!? I had discussed the issues with the vendors of my PC-DVD drive and of my TV DVD set. They all agree that the RegionCode is a bad and shortsighted idea. They all sympathized with me; however, due to the rules they are bound to of the DVD forum they could not (officially) provide remedies. Welcome to George Orwell land? Thanks, jm. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 9 19:26:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA15616 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:26:26 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA15613 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:26:25 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:26:29 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:26:27 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/09/2000 04:26:28 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu ....Seem to have missed my points...they were not about the technology perse( terrestrial broadcast mode for ATCS Digital TV pumps out 69.408Gb/hr but a lot of that is synchronication ...I've got the specs sitting behind this window...). I have no doubt that HDTV, ATSC etc etc adnauseum will be look superior. That was not what I was getting at One point was that all of this WONDERFUL technology only has benefit if you have the equipment that can display it. Few people actual do have these latest TOYS at present or are likely to get them at the prices that will be charged. Another point was I don't see much point in forcing the American Public to buy 300,000,000 new TVs because a small percentage of people love high technology toys and the government lusts after the spectrum to give you more high tech toys. On a philosophical note : "How much will people lives be more enriched by switching over from NTSC to ATSC and HDTV ?" John Schulien Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) 11/09/00 03:38 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael Rolenz writes: > HDTV on a computer monitor? What's the point? > It's like the TV tuners you can get that can put a > 2" x 3" TV screen on your monitor...Why bother? Because an HDTV signal has so much information that it blows even DVD away. 7.7 GB/hour. This card has a computer monitor setting of 1024 x 768. Compare a good, sharp 1024 x 768 picture on your computer monitor to a television picture. Unlike NTSC TV tuner cards, which are limited by the ancient broadcast standards, HDTV tuners are going to produce a signal that exceeds DVD quality. We're talking night and day. Those NTSC tuner video cards are a nifty little gimmick. This looks like the real deal. Full, high resolution digital video. No "access control" crap to make life miserable for consumers. Steve Bryan writes: > There has been considerable work and discussion > around potential standards like 5C for encrypting > content but with all the foot dragging we now have > Hollywood's "nightmare" to be made available by > mid December. Exactly. By putting a fully non-access-controlled standard on the market, they may well destroy any market for crippled hardware that uses encryption to prevent you from recording the signal, just like unrestricted MP3 has permanently and completely destroyed the market for copy protected music, although the RIAA is still frantically applying CPR to the cold corpse in the form of the SDMI. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 9 19:40:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA16485 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:40:50 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA16482 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:40:47 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 01:29:45 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 01:32:10 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 01:32:10 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! Message-ID: <20001110013210.A7967@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jmhoraze@compuserve.com on Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 03:26:12PM -0800 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Juergen + Barbara wrote: > While the MPAA's argues it wants to control movie release windows around the world, I doubt that this is really the issue. I'd like to argue that it is. > Firstly, > why are movies not released worldwide the same day? several reasons. translations and stuff (localized merchandize, etc) take time. then you choose the "surrounding" carefully - you try to not have your "maybe blockbuster" collide with a "sure blockbuster". third, some movies are clearly "summer" or "winter" movies, which means 6 months delay between the northern and the southern hemisphere. > (As it was the case for "StarWars -- The Phantom Menace") Mostly, to allow time > for dubbing or creating and providing extra subtitles. If the different release > windows really were an issue then it would had been already noticed. > (Videocassettes don't have the protection, and most players and TV sets in > Europe and Asia are offered multi-standard.) you sure? I live in europe, and all systems I know are PAL. > I think Regioncodes are more like a trade barrier; MPAA does not like to > see films made from (companies of) other countries being sold here. Get the > competition out! sometimes, the competition is themselves - many movies have different distributors in different parts of the world. > In a couple countries Regioncodes is outlawed. Free Speech protection, and you have already purchased all rights to view a movie > when you bought the DVD. Here, in the USA, it seems that Free Speech protection is only a tool for big money!? has there been a lawsuit for "circumvention" of the region coding somewhere on the planet? I guess not, because the movie mafia wouldn't want to set a precedent that say circumvention of region codes is ok... > I had discussed the issues with the vendors of my PC-DVD drive and of my TV DVD set. They all agree that the RegionCode is a bad and > shortsighted idea. They all sympathized with me; however, due to the rules they are bound to of the DVD forum they could not > (officially) provide remedies. yepp. as I've said a few times: they got in bed with the movie mafia and, unsurprisingly, got screwed. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 9 22:43:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA18429 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:43:51 -0500 Received: from spdmraaa.compuserve.com (ds-img-rel-1.compuserve.com [149.174.206.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA18426 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:43:50 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmraaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id WAA27570 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:43:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mic667 (sfr-tgn-yyk-vty72.as.wcom.net [216.192.47.72]) by spdmraaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id WAA27550 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:43:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: Subject: 2RE: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:16:12 -0800 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <20001110013210.A7967@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu all TV sets, at least the 70cm and up, in (most of) Europe are multistandard already, supporting Secam (east), PAL, NTSC. Videorecorders are available, too, even HiFi. DVD players are multistandard anyway. The other arguments I listed still stand. The different release windows are IMHO *not* the reason for Regioncode; as you still can get VCs shipped from, say, USA. But again, majority of people like their dubbed or subtitled versions! Not all people in Europe -- with the possible exception of UK -- are fluent in English to fully enjoy an english movie. *jm* -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Vogt Sent: Donnerstag, 9. November 2000 16:32 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! Juergen + Barbara wrote: > While the MPAA's argues it wants to control movie release windows around the world, I doubt that this is really the issue. I'd like to argue that it is. (...) > (Videocassettes don't have the protection, and most players and TV sets in > Europe and Asia are offered multi-standard.) you sure? I live in europe, and all systems I know are PAL. > I think Regioncodes are more like a trade barrier; MPAA does not like to > see films made from (companies of) other countries being sold here. Get the > competition out! sometimes, the competition is themselves - many movies have different distributors in different parts of the world. (...) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 05:40:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA22875 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:40:50 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id FAA22872 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:40:48 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:26:52 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:21:00 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:20:59 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: 2RE: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! Message-ID: <20001110112059.A9093@lemuria.org> References: <20001110013210.A7967@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jmhoraze@compuserve.com on Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 07:16:12PM -0800 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Juergen + Barbara wrote: > all TV sets, at least the 70cm and up, in (most of) Europe are multistandard already, supporting Secam (east), PAL, NTSC. > Videorecorders are available, too, even HiFi. weird, the last videorecorder I bought (not too long ago) is still PAL only. > The other arguments I listed still stand. > The different release windows are IMHO *not* the reason for Regioncode; as you still can get VCs shipped from, say, USA. yeah, but who buys the vc if he has dvd? I know I didn't buy a single vc since I have a dvd drive. and besides, the release window *is* the reason they're giving themselves when they pop their heads out of their asses and stop talking piracy this, piracy that. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 05:48:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA23050 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:48:58 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA23047 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:48:56 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20007; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:49:03 GMT Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:49:03 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Juergen writes (replying to Tom): > all TV sets, at least the 70cm and up, in (most of) Europe are multistandard > already, supporting Secam (east), PAL, NTSC. Videorecorders are available, > too, even HiFi. DVD players are multistandard anyway. > I'd agree with this but here in the UK it is rare to see a multi-standard TV that will do SECAM. Probably it's a different story in Germany due to both France and the old DDR being SECAM countries. (Does the eastern side of Germany still transmit SECAM, or did they convert to PAL?) > The other arguments I listed still stand. > The different release windows are IMHO *not* the reason for Regioncode; as > you still can get VCs shipped from, say, USA. > I think it's on record somewhere that Tom is right and the movie industry insisted on region codes *specifically* to stop US exports of DVDs. They totally hated the fact that VHS and Laserdisks were being exported all the time, but couldn't stop it easily(*). With the new DVD format came the chance to put an end to it (so they thought). After all, DVDs are smaller and lighter then VHS or Laserdisk and thus are more conveniently exportable. Despite the MPAA's wishes, probably 80% or more of the DVD players sold in Britain at the moment are multi-region. This is a wild guess based on the fact that huge numbers of really cheap DVD players are being sold in Tesco (a big supermarket chain) and I bet the other supermarkets are doing similar business. Tesco's players are region-free for sure, and I can't imagine the other chains sell anything different (Samsung 709 and clones). People (like me) who like to pay a bit more and get better quality machines often mail-order them from specialist hi-fi/video companies who advertise all their machines as region- free/region-settable. You'd have to ask them specially if you wanted a player that *wasn't* chipped! ----------------------------- (*) I have a laserdisk player, and I know that several of the big US Laserdisk vendors stopped allowing exports from time to time due to the studios sending them cease and desist letters. Supply never dried up, but sometimes it got a bit difficult. Luckily, there were always more companies prepared to do the exporting than the studios could keep track of. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 05:53:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA23177 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:53:53 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA23174 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:53:52 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20018; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:54:03 GMT Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:54:03 GMT Subject: Re: 2RE: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20001110112059.A9093@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom writes: > Juergen + Barbara wrote: > > all TV sets, at least the 70cm and up, in (most of) Europe are multistandard already, supporting Secam (east), PAL, NTSC. > > Videorecorders are available, too, even HiFi. > > weird, the last videorecorder I bought (not too long ago) is still PAL > only. > In the UK, you can buy "NTSC capable" VCRs. These will play NTSC tapes (complete with hifi sound), but usually won't record it. My VCR is not advertised to do NTSC, but actually it *will* play NTSC tapes, but in black and white only, and mono linear-track sound only. > and besides, the release window *is* the reason they're giving themselves > when they pop their heads out of their asses and stop talking piracy this, > piracy that. > True, but they also are I believe on record as saying that they "need" to be able to preserve their precious "release window" system too. Of course, a side effect of that is the preservation of seasonal release schedules in the northern and southern hemispheres. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 05:59:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA23276 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:59:02 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA23273 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:59:00 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20027; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:59:11 GMT Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:59:11 GMT Subject: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20001108185205.A3019@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > > Otherwise, it strikes me as a likely > > case of de minimis non curat lex; with no concrete injury, there's > > nothing for a court to remedy. > Interesting. Why doesn't this cut both ways? Surely the DVDCCA can't show a single case of concrete injury from the existence of deCSS, so surely there's nothing for a court to remedy? -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 07:28:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA24305 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:28:42 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA24302 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:28:39 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA06843 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:28:51 -0700 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:28:50 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Practical magic (was Re: Amici) In-Reply-To: <20001107214416.D32060@lemuria.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 To follow on my recent tradition of _reductio_, does that make Windows a "circumvention device"? Quick before Kaplan gets overturned, someone associated with the CD industry sue Microsoft...talk about deeeeep pockets... On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Tom Vogt wrote: > Steve Hosgood wrote: > > Not bad! I suspect that the plaintiffs would try and counterclaim that the > > ripper is "circumventing a protection" by reaching into another process's > > internal space. Would the DMCA cover that? > > the technical point is that they do, in fact, *not* circumvent anything. > the windoze operating system is *designed* in a way that explicitly allows > them to do what they are doing. > > > > -- FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you! Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 07:54:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA24855 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:54:41 -0500 Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA24852 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:54:39 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld458.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.144.168]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA13994 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:54:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A0BEF3B.939579F1@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:51:08 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: [dvd-discuss] Reductio (was Practical magic) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=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 follow on my recent tradition of _reductio_, does that make Windows a > "circumvention device"? Quick before Kaplan gets overturned, someone > associated with the CD industry sue Microsoft...talk about deeeeep > pockets... > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Tom Vogt wrote: > > > Steve Hosgood wrote: > > > Not bad! I suspect that the plaintiffs would try and counterclaim that the > > > ripper is "circumventing a protection" by reaching into another process's > > > internal space. Would the DMCA cover that? > > > > the technical point is that they do, in fact, *not* circumvent anything. > > the windoze operating system is *designed* in a way that explicitly allows > > them to do what they are doing. > How long before we hear a twisted meaning of 'protected memory space' as a tpm, I wonder? For efficiency, that case should be combined with a suit from RIAA. A wintel box is also a 'digital recording device' that hasn't been paying royalties to the recording industry. That would let napster off the hook, too. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 09:25:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA26626 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:25:41 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA26623 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:25:39 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id JAA09885 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:25:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id JAA07140; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:25:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:25:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011101425.JAA07140@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) In-Reply-To: References: <20001108185205.A3019@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Hosgood writes: > > "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > > > Otherwise, it strikes me as a likely > > > case of de minimis non curat lex; with no concrete injury, there's > > > nothing for a court to remedy. > > > > Interesting. Why doesn't this cut both ways? Surely the DVDCCA > can't show a single case of concrete injury from the existence of > deCSS, so surely there's nothing for a court to remedy? The defense tried that --- they made a very big deal about the Ps' failure to exhibit a single movie which had been copied by means of DeCSS. But the Ps successfully argued for *potential* harm in the future. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 10:13:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA27192 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:13:01 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA27189 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:12:58 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA20727; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:13:10 GMT Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:13:10 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <200011101425.JAA07140@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Interesting. Why doesn't this cut both ways? Surely the DVDCCA > > can't show a single case of concrete injury from the existence of > > deCSS, so surely there's nothing for a court to remedy? > > The defense tried that --- they made a very big deal about the Ps' > failure to exhibit a single movie which had been copied by means of > DeCSS. But the Ps successfully argued for *potential* harm in the > future. > Is that legal? If there is supposed to be a principle of "De minimis non curat lex" then that's surely another error by Kaplan? I mean, that's like arresting someone for walking out of his house on the principle that "he might kill someone". After the recent discussion on "can you/can't you make a DVD home movie" it seems fairly clear that no normal person could use deCSS to copy a DVD because nothing recorded on recordable DVD media will play back on a DVD player. The only possible damaging use of deCSS (apart from allowing the manufacture of non-cartel DVD players) would be to allow someone with access to an industrial DVD pressing plant(*) to make (say) region-free variants of an offical DVD. The only case I know of which even *looks* like that is the rumoured PAL region-0 non-CSS "Gladiator" with chinese subtitles(!). However, that was probably mastered from a pirate telecine job or a camcorder-in-cinema. It's unlikely to have been mastered from the official region 1 DVD as that would have entailed a 3D sampling-rate conversion, and the offical region-2 (PAL) DVD surely hasn't been out long enough. Anyone know for sure? As for the pirate VCD market (mostly South East Asia only) would there be any market for pirate VCDs once the offical DVDs came out? Pirates want the early market. They're not going to wait for the DVD to come out before hitting the streets. DeCSS is surely useless to them, and it ought to be obvious to the courts - unless I'm missing something. ----------------------- (*) And they'd be too busy making bit-for-bit pirate copies of offical DVDs. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 10:20:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA27380 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:20:10 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA27377 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:20:09 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id KAA15161 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:20:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id KAA07260; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:20:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:20:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011101520.KAA07260@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) In-Reply-To: References: <200011101425.JAA07140@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Hosgood writes: > > The defense tried that --- they made a very big deal about the Ps' > > failure to exhibit a single movie which had been copied by means of > > DeCSS. But the Ps successfully argued for *potential* harm in the > > future. > > > > Is that legal? If there is supposed to be a principle of "De minimis non > curat lex" then that's surely another error by Kaplan? Well, once again, IANAL, but I don't think so --- "De minimis non curat lex" is sometimes translated into English as "the law doesn't care for trifles". Substantial potential harm is not a trifle; that's why courts generally grant preliminary injunctions against possible patent infringement even if the allegedly infringing device has never been sold or distributed... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 11:07:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27925 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:07:37 -0500 Received: from web6404.mail.yahoo.com (web6404.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.22.152]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA27922 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:07:35 -0500 Message-ID: <20001110160746.20734.qmail@web6404.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [207.1.61.112] by web6404.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:07:46 PST Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:07:46 -0800 (PST) From: Pete Broule Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) 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 --- Steve Hosgood wrote: > After the recent discussion on "can you/can't you make a DVD home > movie" it > seems fairly clear that no normal person could use deCSS to copy a > DVD because > nothing recorded on recordable DVD media will play back on a DVD > player. > > The only possible damaging use of deCSS (apart from allowing the > manufacture > of non-cartel DVD players) would be to allow someone with access to > an > industrial DVD pressing plant(*) to make (say) region-free variants > of an > offical DVD. And what about distributing the movie over the Internet? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 11:12:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28096 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:12:35 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28093 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:12:34 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:12:39 -0800 Subject: Re: 2RE: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:12:38 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/10/2000 08:12:39 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Actually, the MPAA is probably telling the truth on the region codes. Don't forget the financing issues. Releasing overseas means more advertising, more prints, etc. Those are sunk costs until they begin to make money. So, naturally, they don't want to sink those costs until they have atleast broken even on the domestic market. The MPAA is afraid that if they allow DVDs to be shipped overseas then that will hurt their theater revenues. Of course, one option would be to not release DVDs anywhere in the world until the main run of a film has finished worldwide. But, they don't want to do that. They want to get the DVDs into the stores ASAP after the domestic theater run is over. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Actually, I would guess that the MPAA and Jack Valenti are probably quite surprised at some of the resentment worldwide over regional coding since this is how they have been doing business for years and they see no reasons why they have to change. And lets face it, does anyone really believe that Hollywood is full of rocket scientists or saints? Hollywood is just out to make the most money it can, anyway and anyhow. Don't expect those clown to think beyond their pocket book on the implications of what they want to do.Don't expect any intelligent discussions on cartels, monopolies, restraint of trade, freedom of speech, freedom of action, the bill of rights, or responsibility from that crowd. Look at the extraordinary steps they are taking to preserve their status quo. "Juergen + Barbara" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: 2RE: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's arvard.edu what I call (mind) control! 11/09/00 07:46 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss all TV sets, at least the 70cm and up, in (most of) Europe are multistandard already, supporting Secam (east), PAL, NTSC. Videorecorders are available, too, even HiFi. DVD players are multistandard anyway. The other arguments I listed still stand. The different release windows are IMHO *not* the reason for Regioncode; as you still can get VCs shipped from, say, USA. But again, majority of people like their dubbed or subtitled versions! Not all people in Europe -- with the possible exception of UK -- are fluent in English to fully enjoy an english movie. *jm* -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Vogt Sent: Donnerstag, 9. November 2000 16:32 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! Juergen + Barbara wrote: > While the MPAA's argues it wants to control movie release windows around the world, I doubt that this is really the issue. I'd like to argue that it is. (...) > (Videocassettes don't have the protection, and most players and TV sets in > Europe and Asia are offered multi-standard.) you sure? I live in europe, and all systems I know are PAL. > I think Regioncodes are more like a trade barrier; MPAA does not like to > see films made from (companies of) other countries being sold here. Get the > competition out! sometimes, the competition is themselves - many movies have different distributors in different parts of the world. (...) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 11:19:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28280 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:19:34 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28277 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:19:33 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:19:38 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:19:36 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/10/2000 08:19:37 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Interesting that they sent "cease and desist" letters to the laserdisk distributers. That's a restraint of trade and one sure sign of an abusive trust. A lot of the problem with the studios seems to stem from the fact that they do not understand the difference between licensing films for viewing in theaters and PUBLISHING them for sale to the general public. They don't understand that the latter entails a loss of control once the sale has been made (save for copyright protections). "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's arvard.edu what I call (mind) control! 11/10/00 02:50 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Juergen writes (replying to Tom): > all TV sets, at least the 70cm and up, in (most of) Europe are multistandard > already, supporting Secam (east), PAL, NTSC. Videorecorders are available, > too, even HiFi. DVD players are multistandard anyway. > I'd agree with this but here in the UK it is rare to see a multi-standard TV that will do SECAM. Probably it's a different story in Germany due to both France and the old DDR being SECAM countries. (Does the eastern side of Germany still transmit SECAM, or did they convert to PAL?) > The other arguments I listed still stand. > The different release windows are IMHO *not* the reason for Regioncode; as > you still can get VCs shipped from, say, USA. > I think it's on record somewhere that Tom is right and the movie industry insisted on region codes *specifically* to stop US exports of DVDs. They totally hated the fact that VHS and Laserdisks were being exported all the time, but couldn't stop it easily(*). With the new DVD format came the chance to put an end to it (so they thought). After all, DVDs are smaller and lighter then VHS or Laserdisk and thus are more conveniently exportable. Despite the MPAA's wishes, probably 80% or more of the DVD players sold in Britain at the moment are multi-region. This is a wild guess based on the fact that huge numbers of really cheap DVD players are being sold in Tesco (a big supermarket chain) and I bet the other supermarkets are doing similar business. Tesco's players are region-free for sure, and I can't imagine the other chains sell anything different (Samsung 709 and clones). People (like me) who like to pay a bit more and get better quality machines often mail-order them from specialist hi-fi/video companies who advertise all their machines as region- free/region-settable. You'd have to ask them specially if you wanted a player that *wasn't* chipped! ----------------------------- (*) I have a laserdisk player, and I know that several of the big US Laserdisk vendors stopped allowing exports from time to time due to the studios sending them cease and desist letters. Supply never dried up, but sometimes it got a bit difficult. Luckily, there were always more companies prepared to do the exporting than the studios could keep track of. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 11:24:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28548 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:24:12 -0500 Received: from mail.travel-net.com (root@mail.travel-net.com [204.92.71.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28545 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:24:11 -0500 Received: from travel-net.com (trj115.travel-net.com [207.176.160.115]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28162 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:24:19 -0500 Message-ID: <3A0C212F.179B4352@travel-net.com> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:24:15 -0500 From: Dan Steinberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) References: <200011101425.JAA07140@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <200011101520.KAA07260@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes but remember that "substantial potential harm" is not a broad-brush magic wand you can wave and create a cause of action. Injunctions are granted under narrow circumstances. The mere existence of 'substantial potential harm' is not enough. You need a lot more. And in some jursidictions, you cant even dredge up a cause of action, the rationale being 'how can you evaluate the harm if you havent started yet?' and in the case of an injunction, 'if you cant evaluate the harm, how can we see if its worthy?'. Im sure Jim can say this more eloquently, (or even correct me)) but I am a few time zones east of him.... All this to say, I think Kaplan opened this up with his talk of canoes on the Hudson. He asked what was the point if the injunction and P. failed to make a point why there would be additional harm since the code was already 'out there'. If theres no additional harm, then its hard to find it being 'substantial'... Dan "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Steve Hosgood writes: > > > The defense tried that --- they made a very big deal about the Ps' > > > failure to exhibit a single movie which had been copied by means of > > > DeCSS. But the Ps successfully argued for *potential* harm in the > > > future. > > > > > > > Is that legal? If there is supposed to be a principle of "De minimis non > > curat lex" then that's surely another error by Kaplan? > > Well, once again, IANAL, but I don't think so --- > > "De minimis non curat lex" is sometimes translated into English as > "the law doesn't care for trifles". Substantial potential harm is not > a trifle; that's why courts generally grant preliminary injunctions > against possible patent infringement even if the allegedly infringing > device has never been sold or distributed... > > rst -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@vrx.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 11:26:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28687 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:26:27 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28682 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:26:25 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:26:33 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:26:31 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/10/2000 08:26:32 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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's ruling on the "potential" harm is puzzling. Generally, I have been told by friends who are lawyers (and in one instance a pro tem judge) that judges don't like potential damages. In some ways, Kaplan's granting the injunction was about the most he could do to prevent "potential"damage but was probably why he didn't give the Ps their legal fees- they showed no actual damages and the technical testimony shows that it isn't likely to be much of a threat unless one has dedicated broadband comm. "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex arvard.edu (was: Re: Practical magic) 11/10/00 06:28 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Steve Hosgood writes: > > "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > > > Otherwise, it strikes me as a likely > > > case of de minimis non curat lex; with no concrete injury, there's > > > nothing for a court to remedy. > > > > Interesting. Why doesn't this cut both ways? Surely the DVDCCA > can't show a single case of concrete injury from the existence of > deCSS, so surely there's nothing for a court to remedy? The defense tried that --- they made a very big deal about the Ps' failure to exhibit a single movie which had been copied by means of DeCSS. But the Ps successfully argued for *potential* harm in the future. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 11:43:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30650 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:43:08 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA30647 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:43:06 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:43:11 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:43:10 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/10/2000 08:43:11 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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. The issue has never been piracy. That's Jack Valenti's smoke screen. What they want is to protect their business model. Part of that is eliminating home recording. They have never accepted the fact that the Supreme Court ruled against them in the Sony case and that Congress passed the home recording act. Now they want to use technology and a stupid law to reestablish their previous position. "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat arvard.edu lex (was: Re: Practical magic) 11/10/00 07:15 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss > > Interesting. Why doesn't this cut both ways? Surely the DVDCCA > > can't show a single case of concrete injury from the existence of > > deCSS, so surely there's nothing for a court to remedy? > > The defense tried that --- they made a very big deal about the Ps' > failure to exhibit a single movie which had been copied by means of > DeCSS. But the Ps successfully argued for *potential* harm in the > future. > Is that legal? If there is supposed to be a principle of "De minimis non curat lex" then that's surely another error by Kaplan? I mean, that's like arresting someone for walking out of his house on the principle that "he might kill someone". After the recent discussion on "can you/can't you make a DVD home movie" it seems fairly clear that no normal person could use deCSS to copy a DVD because nothing recorded on recordable DVD media will play back on a DVD player. The only possible damaging use of deCSS (apart from allowing the manufacture of non-cartel DVD players) would be to allow someone with access to an industrial DVD pressing plant(*) to make (say) region-free variants of an offical DVD. The only case I know of which even *looks* like that is the rumoured PAL region-0 non-CSS "Gladiator" with chinese subtitles(!). However, that was probably mastered from a pirate telecine job or a camcorder-in-cinema. It's unlikely to have been mastered from the official region 1 DVD as that would have entailed a 3D sampling-rate conversion, and the offical region-2 (PAL) DVD surely hasn't been out long enough. Anyone know for sure? As for the pirate VCD market (mostly South East Asia only) would there be any market for pirate VCDs once the offical DVDs came out? Pirates want the early market. They're not going to wait for the DVD to come out before hitting the streets. DeCSS is surely useless to them, and it ought to be obvious to the courts - unless I'm missing something. ----------------------- (*) And they'd be too busy making bit-for-bit pirate copies of offical DVDs. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 11:53:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30872 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:53:08 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA30869 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:53:06 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:52:23 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:52:21 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/10/2000 08:52:22 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 should have added that they keep loosing court cases on their previous positions. 1917 on the projector. The late 40s on owning theaters. The parallel is so uncanny that it's tempting to find the court decisions and see how it reads if one replaces the words projector with DVD player, theater with DVD manufacturer(?). With the DVD technology they seem to be intent upon reestablishing that control but in a different way. Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) 11/10/00 08:45 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss No. The issue has never been piracy. That's Jack Valenti's smoke screen. What they want is to protect their business model. Part of that is eliminating home recording. They have never accepted the fact that the Supreme Court ruled against them in the Sony case and that Congress passed the home recording act. Now they want to use technology and a stupid law to reestablish their previous position. "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat arvard.edu lex (was: Re: Practical magic) 11/10/00 07:15 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss > > Interesting. Why doesn't this cut both ways? Surely the DVDCCA > > can't show a single case of concrete injury from the existence of > > deCSS, so surely there's nothing for a court to remedy? > > The defense tried that --- they made a very big deal about the Ps' > failure to exhibit a single movie which had been copied by means of > DeCSS. But the Ps successfully argued for *potential* harm in the > future. > Is that legal? If there is supposed to be a principle of "De minimis non curat lex" then that's surely another error by Kaplan? I mean, that's like arresting someone for walking out of his house on the principle that "he might kill someone". After the recent discussion on "can you/can't you make a DVD home movie" it seems fairly clear that no normal person could use deCSS to copy a DVD because nothing recorded on recordable DVD media will play back on a DVD player. The only possible damaging use of deCSS (apart from allowing the manufacture of non-cartel DVD players) would be to allow someone with access to an industrial DVD pressing plant(*) to make (say) region-free variants of an offical DVD. The only case I know of which even *looks* like that is the rumoured PAL region-0 non-CSS "Gladiator" with chinese subtitles(!). However, that was probably mastered from a pirate telecine job or a camcorder-in-cinema. It's unlikely to have been mastered from the official region 1 DVD as that would have entailed a 3D sampling-rate conversion, and the offical region-2 (PAL) DVD surely hasn't been out long enough. Anyone know for sure? As for the pirate VCD market (mostly South East Asia only) would there be any market for pirate VCDs once the offical DVDs came out? Pirates want the early market. They're not going to wait for the DVD to come out before hitting the streets. DeCSS is surely useless to them, and it ought to be obvious to the courts - unless I'm missing something. ----------------------- (*) And they'd be too busy making bit-for-bit pirate copies of offical DVDs. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 12:33:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA31411 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:33:24 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA31408 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:33:23 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id MAA01919 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id MAA08263; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:33:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:33:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011101733.MAA08263@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) In-Reply-To: <3A0C212F.179B4352@travel-net.com> References: <200011101425.JAA07140@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <200011101520.KAA07260@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <3A0C212F.179B4352@travel-net.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dan Steinberg writes: > Yes but remember that "substantial potential harm" is not a > broad-brush magic wand you can wave and create a cause of action. > Injunctions are granted under narrow circumstances. The mere > existence of 'substantial potential harm' is not enough. You need > a lot more. Could you be more specific? In patent cases, my general impression that you don't need a whole lot more than a patent and a defendant who you can credibly allege to be infringing the patent --- the patent itself is presumed to be valid, for instance (which is one of the big problems with, e.g., software patents, where PTO review of prior art is routinely inadequate). [I'll cut this off if it gets too far off-topic, but I think there's a principle of general interest here...] > And in some jursidictions, you cant even dredge up a > cause of action, the rationale being 'how can you evaluate the harm > if you havent started yet?' and in the case of an injunction, 'if > you cant evaluate the harm, how can we see if its worthy?'. This is presumably one of the reasons why the plaintiffs' law brief included all that stuff about the sales volume of the movie industry --- to try to establish the magnitude of the potential harm. Also why the defendants' attorneys were pointing out that no movie had actually been pirated with DeCSS, and that other tools were available in any case. But it's a lot easy to overcome these barriers if you have a sympathetic judge... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 12:35:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA31578 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:35:30 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA31575 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:35:30 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id MAA02278 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:35:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id MAA08315; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:35:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:35:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011101735.MAA08315@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Michael A. Rolenz writes: > No. The issue has never been piracy. That's Jack Valenti's smoke screen. > What they want is to protect their business model. Part of that is > eliminating home recording. They have never accepted the fact that the > Supreme Court ruled against them in the Sony case and that Congress passed > the home recording act. Now they want to use technology and a stupid law to > reestablish their previous position. Of course. But it's been a very effective smoke screen so far, so if we're trying to frame arguments that win, we need to deal with it. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 12:52:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA31921 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:52:43 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA31918 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:52:42 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:52:27 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:52:26 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/10/2000 09:52:27 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 should have started with "no you are not missing anything". You are right. It's been a very effective smoke screen . It's simple, pejorative, and something that people can relate to. It's classic propaganda of the Joseph Goebbels school-take complex ideas, simplify them and repeat them over and over again. And it has to be dealt with. Technically it is nonsense because of bit for bit copying. Practically it is nonsense since DVD piracy still exists no matter what the quality. Actually, that is another argument. Why does the quality or lifetime of a published work matter? It doesn't. "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat arvard.edu lex (was: Re: Practical magic) 11/10/00 09:37 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael A. Rolenz writes: > No. The issue has never been piracy. That's Jack Valenti's smoke screen. > What they want is to protect their business model. Part of that is > eliminating home recording. They have never accepted the fact that the > Supreme Court ruled against them in the Sony case and that Congress passed > the home recording act. Now they want to use technology and a stupid law to > reestablish their previous position. Of course. But it's been a very effective smoke screen so far, so if we're trying to frame arguments that win, we need to deal with it. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 13:30:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA01290 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:30:45 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA01287 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:30:43 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:22:46 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:01:27 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:01:27 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! Message-ID: <20001110190127.A10199@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 10:49:03AM +0000 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Hosgood wrote: > I'd agree with this but here in the UK it is rare to see a multi-standard TV > that will do SECAM. Probably it's a different story in Germany due to both > France and the old DDR being SECAM countries. (Does the eastern side of > Germany still transmit SECAM, or did they convert to PAL?) I don't know. my best guess is that they converted. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 14:54:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02683 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:54:31 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA02680 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:54:30 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id OAA19978 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:54:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id OAA09503; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:54:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:54:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011101954.OAA09503@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu jmhoraze@compuserve.com writes: > OR, is it a censorship? I am a German native, and I like to enjoy > movies from my home country. However, with the spirit of the > RegionCode I were not allowed to enjoy any movies (on DVD) from > Germany. And, as you can guess, it is highly unlikely these will be > ever published in the USA with RegionCode 1. I feel like living in > the communist block countries where strong censorship prohibits > import of foreign news, movies, etc. Welcome to the dark ages!?? I think that in this *particular* case, German movie in the US, censorship probably is an unintended effect. But bear this in mind, from the transcript of the Stanford hearing on the anticircumvention provisions of the law: PAGE 262 1 MR. MARKS: Another reason why we need 2 regional coding, why we do regional coding is that 3 the law in various territories is different with 4 regard to censorship requirements. So we cannot 5 simply distribute the same work throughout the world 6 in the same version. Local laws impose censorship 7 regulations on us that require us to both exhibit 8 and distribute versions of the films that comply 9 with those censorship requirements. Of course, for region codes to actually assist them in complying with local censorship laws, the region boundaries would have to coincide with national (or maybe local jurisdictional) boundaries, and that's only the case with China (region 6). But hey, it's not as if they're trying to censor your viewing themselves. They're just helping the governments... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 15:11:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA03028 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:11:24 -0500 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 PAA03025 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:11:23 -0500 Received: from [204.1.1.128] ([204.1.1.128] verified) by cyclesoftware.com (Stalker SMTP Server 1.8b6) with ESMTP id S.0000726138 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:11:10 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: steve_bryan@mail.mac.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:51:49 -0600 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: steve bryan Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) 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 >....Seem to have missed my points...they were not about the technology >perse( terrestrial broadcast mode for ATCS Digital TV pumps out >69.408Gb/hr but a lot of that is synchronication ...I've got the specs >sitting behind this window...). I have no doubt that HDTV, ATSC etc etc >adnauseum will be look superior. That was not what I was getting at > >One point was that all of this WONDERFUL technology only has benefit if you >have the equipment that can display it. Few people actual do have these >latest TOYS at present or are likely to get them at the prices that will be >charged. > >Another point was I don't see much point in forcing the American Public to >buy 300,000,000 new TVs because a small percentage of people love high >technology toys and the government lusts after the spectrum to give you >more high tech toys. > >On a philosophical note : "How much will people lives be more enriched by >switching over from NTSC to ATSC and HDTV ?" > I thought your point was: At 1:27 pm -0800 11/9/2000, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >HDTV on a computer monitor? What's the point? It's like the TV tuners you >can get that can put a 2" x 3" TV screen on your monitor...Why bother? The point I was making (along with others) that it is nothing at all like a "2" x 3" TV screen. Like DVD on a computer monitor it isn't a goofy facsimile of the "real thing", it is in many cases better. This development, hdtv on a pci board, is something I've been expecting though it has certainly taken longer than I expected. My other expectation is that the market for hdtv on computers will soon dwarf the consumer electronics hdtv market. The mass market (or more accurately, the non-computer market) will be served by low cost adaptors like the RCA DCT100 only much less expensive connected to or incorporated in standard definition TV's. How will peoples' lives be enriched by this development? Since many "right thinking" individuals consider all of popular culture and TV in particular to be a bane to the human spirit this will tend to be a loaded question. Setting those considerations aside I think that TV as a computer application alongside email, web access, videophone, true digital TV (ie synthetic and interactive rather than simply digitized; otherwise known as computer games like Quake), etc will make network TV viewing a less passive activity and also a less dominant activity. Just to maintain the rather tenuous connection to the current mailing list we should note just how momentous this event is in the struggle between those who want to lock down media (CSS, 5C, etc) and the trend to turn the PC into the everything media machine. If the media is driven by a PC then tinkerers (aka hackers) will naturally unlock it. Interesting times. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 16:16:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03872 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:16:04 -0500 Received: from emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (cc273095-a.hwrd1.md.home.com [24.3.46.177]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA03869 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:16:03 -0500 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25888; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:16:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:16:15 -0500 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200011102116.QAA25888@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <200011101954.OAA09503@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" wrote: >jmhoraze@compuserve.com writes: > > OR, is it a censorship? I am a German native, and I like to enjoy > > movies from my home country. However, with the spirit of the > > RegionCode I were not allowed to enjoy any movies (on DVD) from > > Germany. And, as you can guess, it is highly unlikely these will be > > ever published in the USA with RegionCode 1. I feel like living in > > the communist block countries where strong censorship prohibits > > import of foreign news, movies, etc. Welcome to the dark ages!?? > >I think that in this *particular* case, German movie in the US, >censorship probably is an unintended effect. But bear this in mind, >from the transcript of the Stanford hearing on the anticircumvention >provisions of the law: > > PAGE 262 > 1 MR. MARKS: Another reason why we need > 2 regional coding, why we do regional coding is that > 3 the law in various territories is different with > 4 regard to censorship requirements. So we cannot > 5 simply distribute the same work throughout the world > 6 in the same version. Local laws impose censorship > 7 regulations on us that require us to both exhibit > 8 and distribute versions of the films that comply > 9 with those censorship requirements. Well, if there was any doubt before, it should be clear now that the movie cartel is morally bankrupt. Aiding and abetting censorship is a crime against humanity. >Of course, for region codes to actually assist them in complying with >local censorship laws, the region boundaries would have to coincide >with national (or maybe local jurisdictional) boundaries, and that's >only the case with China (region 6). > >But hey, it's not as if they're trying to censor your viewing >themselves. They're just helping the governments... Yeah, "I was just following orders". Some excuses never die. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 16:34:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04361 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:34:30 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA04358 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:34:28 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:34:36 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:34:34 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/10/2000 01:34:35 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Because you CAN do something, is that any reason for doing it? You CAN watch HDTV or the DVD on your computer. Wonderful. Do you really want to do so? Are you sitting comfortably for a couple of hours hunched over the screen? The images may be so much clearer but if you're admiring that then it must be a pretty boring movie you are watching. How does one's life get enhanced from watching HDTV rather than NTSC? Or DVD rather than VHS? You can put a TV tuner in your computer. Do you really want to? Senator What's his face likes to check out CNN. Fine. Good for him. Do you really need one? Synthetic interactive TV. Wonderful. Yes. The BRAVE NEW WORLD. Well that's all a part of Jack Valenti's S M O K E S C R E E N! Read the press releases. Read some of the commentaries. The gist is "Those screaming hoards of hackers are preventing us from enriching the lives of Americans by providing them with DVDs and HDTV and all that." Are they doing it for YOUR benefit? Is there any benefit? Is there actually any enrichment or merely the perception of it? Or are they doing it for their own? And what do they want in payment? I can do without DVDs if that means perpetual copyright and no public domain. I can do without the internet connected to my TV if that means that somebody can monitor me. I can do withoutHDTV if it means that 50% of the people can't afford to buy it. Yes interesting times. I keep remembering how the Roman emperors provided elaborate entertainments to the people to keep themselves popular and themselves in power. BTW - videophone flopped when Bell Labs tested it in the 60s. It seems that many people will come out of the shower or get up out of bed to answer the telephone but NOT the videophone. steve bryan To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards arvard.edu (was: Practical magic) 11/10/00 12:13 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss >....Seem to have missed my points...they were not about the technology >perse( terrestrial broadcast mode for ATCS Digital TV pumps out >69.408Gb/hr but a lot of that is synchronication ...I've got the specs >sitting behind this window...). I have no doubt that HDTV, ATSC etc etc >adnauseum will be look superior. That was not what I was getting at > >One point was that all of this WONDERFUL technology only has benefit if you >have the equipment that can display it. Few people actual do have these >latest TOYS at present or are likely to get them at the prices that will be >charged. > >Another point was I don't see much point in forcing the American Public to >buy 300,000,000 new TVs because a small percentage of people love high >technology toys and the government lusts after the spectrum to give you >more high tech toys. > >On a philosophical note : "How much will people lives be more enriched by >switching over from NTSC to ATSC and HDTV ?" > I thought your point was: At 1:27 pm -0800 11/9/2000, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >HDTV on a computer monitor? What's the point? It's like the TV tuners you >can get that can put a 2" x 3" TV screen on your monitor...Why bother? The point I was making (along with others) that it is nothing at all like a "2" x 3" TV screen. Like DVD on a computer monitor it isn't a goofy facsimile of the "real thing", it is in many cases better. This development, hdtv on a pci board, is something I've been expecting though it has certainly taken longer than I expected. My other expectation is that the market for hdtv on computers will soon dwarf the consumer electronics hdtv market. The mass market (or more accurately, the non-computer market) will be served by low cost adaptors like the RCA DCT100 only much less expensive connected to or incorporated in standard definition TV's. How will peoples' lives be enriched by this development? Since many "right thinking" individuals consider all of popular culture and TV in particular to be a bane to the human spirit this will tend to be a loaded question. Setting those considerations aside I think that TV as a computer application alongside email, web access, videophone, true digital TV (ie synthetic and interactive rather than simply digitized; otherwise known as computer games like Quake), etc will make network TV viewing a less passive activity and also a less dominant activity. Just to maintain the rather tenuous connection to the current mailing list we should note just how momentous this event is in the struggle between those who want to lock down media (CSS, 5C, etc) and the trend to turn the PC into the everything media machine. If the media is driven by a PC then tinkerers (aka hackers) will naturally unlock it. Interesting times. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 16:40:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04540 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:40:32 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA04537 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:40:30 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:39:36 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:39:34 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/10/2000 01:39:36 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 surprise there. Look at Hollywierd. I can't see why anybody would go to see the Flintstones Movie, the Brady Bunch Movie, Charlie's Angles, The Beverly Hill Billy Movie, Mission Impossible Movie-some I didn't watch on first run TV and If I did, I'd rather watch reruns. Hollywood is creatively bankrupt in addition to its moral bankruptcy (As I have pointed out before, Heidi Fleiss was not the madam to the stars but the madam to the producers.) Jim Bauer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's arvard.edu what I call (mind) control! 11/10/00 01:18 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss "Robert S. Thau" wrote: >jmhoraze@compuserve.com writes: > > OR, is it a censorship? I am a German native, and I like to enjoy > > movies from my home country. However, with the spirit of the > > RegionCode I were not allowed to enjoy any movies (on DVD) from > > Germany. And, as you can guess, it is highly unlikely these will be > > ever published in the USA with RegionCode 1. I feel like living in > > the communist block countries where strong censorship prohibits > > import of foreign news, movies, etc. Welcome to the dark ages!?? > >I think that in this *particular* case, German movie in the US, >censorship probably is an unintended effect. But bear this in mind, >from the transcript of the Stanford hearing on the anticircumvention >provisions of the law: > > PAGE 262 > 1 MR. MARKS: Another reason why we need > 2 regional coding, why we do regional coding is that > 3 the law in various territories is different with > 4 regard to censorship requirements. So we cannot > 5 simply distribute the same work throughout the world > 6 in the same version. Local laws impose censorship > 7 regulations on us that require us to both exhibit > 8 and distribute versions of the films that comply > 9 with those censorship requirements. Well, if there was any doubt before, it should be clear now that the movie cartel is morally bankrupt. Aiding and abetting censorship is a crime against humanity. >Of course, for region codes to actually assist them in complying with >local censorship laws, the region boundaries would have to coincide >with national (or maybe local jurisdictional) boundaries, and that's >only the case with China (region 6). > >But hey, it's not as if they're trying to censor your viewing >themselves. They're just helping the governments... Yeah, "I was just following orders". Some excuses never die. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 19:40:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07077 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:40:45 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA07074 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:40:43 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 01:29:56 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:31:50 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:31:50 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) Message-ID: <20001111003150.A11503@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 01:34:34PM -0800 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > that then it must be a pretty boring movie you are watching. How does one's > life get enhanced from watching HDTV rather than NTSC? Or DVD rather than > VHS? I own a beamer, meaning that I watch movies in 3 by 2 *metres*. believe me, the quality difference between VHS and DVD is very visible at that size. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 23:07:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09483 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:07:46 -0500 Received: from sphmraaa.compuserve.com (hs-img-rel-1.compuserve.com [149.174.177.156]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA09477 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:07:44 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by sphmraaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id XAA21373 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:07:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mic667 (sfr-tgn-sfv-vty50.as.wcom.net [216.192.40.50]) by sphmraaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id XAA21350; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:07:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! (law in various territories...) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:40:06 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <200011101954.OAA09503@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Thank you, Robert, for your comments! You do realize that this argument does not really stand! Right? The MPAA did NOT implement Regioncode differences per country (France has different rules how to rate a movie compared to Germany; and you would be still able to sell all movies anyway as long the laws to protect minors are upheld). And the laws in the different countries of Africa are quite different (I would think) from the Far East! Same Regioncode, but not even same territory! They really claimed the laws in the territories were the same -- for all countries within that territory. When I read that passage I just shook the head about the stupidity of that argument. And nobody in the court objected. How ignorant to assume the world outside the USA conforms to the anticipation and the views the USA has about foreign countries! (Apologies if I offended anybody. But that's how other countries describe it in the various magazines and newspaper I happen to read.) Again, this Regioncode is meant controlling the market -- and IMHO most importantly for the MPAA on IMPORTs. *jm* -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Robert S. Thau Sent: Freitag, 10. November 2000 11:55 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! jmhoraze@compuserve.com writes: > OR, is it a censorship? I am a German native, and I like to enjoy > movies from my home country. However, with the spirit of the > RegionCode I were not allowed to enjoy any movies (on DVD) from > Germany. And, as you can guess, it is highly unlikely these will be > ever published in the USA with RegionCode 1. I feel like living in > the communist block countries where strong censorship prohibits > import of foreign news, movies, etc. Welcome to the dark ages!?? I think that in this *particular* case, German movie in the US, censorship probably is an unintended effect. But bear this in mind, from the transcript of the Stanford hearing on the anticircumvention provisions of the law: PAGE 262 1 MR. MARKS: Another reason why we need 2 regional coding, why we do regional coding is that 3 the law in various territories is different with 4 regard to censorship requirements. So we cannot 5 simply distribute the same work throughout the world 6 in the same version. Local laws impose censorship 7 regulations on us that require us to both exhibit 8 and distribute versions of the films that comply 9 with those censorship requirements. Of course, for region codes to actually assist them in complying with local censorship laws, the region boundaries would have to coincide with national (or maybe local jurisdictional) boundaries, and that's only the case with China (region 6). But hey, it's not as if they're trying to censor your viewing themselves. They're just helping the governments... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 10 23:07:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09482 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:07:46 -0500 Received: from sphmraaa.compuserve.com (hs-img-rel-1.compuserve.com [149.174.177.156]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA09476 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:07:44 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by sphmraaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id XAA21363 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:07:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mic667 (sfr-tgn-sfv-vty50.as.wcom.net [216.192.40.50]) by sphmraaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id XAA21337; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:07:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: Subject: 2RE: 2RE: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:40:01 -0800 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <20001110112059.A9093@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu ...not weird, Tom, I was a bit imprecise. Multistandard VCRs are available, however cost more than the normal PAL ones. BTW, you can get even in USA multi-standard VCRs: $300 or $600 HiFi; and even dual VCRs which can convert from one system to the other. What I was actually pointing out was that, even though available and possible to playback in NTSC w/o much problems, original videos from USA are not really sought after; most people prefer their dubbed or sub-titled editions! The claim by the MPAA to have implemented Regioncode is just a phony argument. And I am more concerned of the censorship -- why should we tolerate such free speech infringing restriction from an industry when we readily condemn this when it occurs in a, say, totalitarian country? There are a multitudes of movies out there -- not created by MPAA or their members -- we are not allowed to see in the USA. Keep aside different languages, I do not see any reissues of German or French or English movies here released with Regioncode 1. With some rare exceptions, of course. But look what DVDs are available in USA vs. UK, take "The Avengers" as an example. (Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk) This is a trade-barrier at best. Even though, I must agree, not a good one, as DVD players are now around $100 -- so get a second one; or opt to install kits to make them permanently Regioncode selectable, manual or automatic. The recent attempt by Warner Brothers to have a DVD reject a player set to Regioncode 0 (i.e., no Regioncode enforcement) will not help to circumvent the various tools available. And so far I can see, all DVD players offer remedies to switch from one Regioncode to another. And some counter problem can be reset, e.g., by reflashing the firmware. On the other hand, if a DVD will not play in my recorder, I will gladly return that DVD; in the end, the movie industry will not make money when other customers do likewise! Just some thoughts -- sorry for being upset here... OK, in the USA -- with their ambiguous law system (too much uncertainty in any trial, IMHO, no consistency in applying law and rulings; keep aside http://www.dumblaws.com) -- money rules! So it is up to the masses of consumer to raise their voices, to start a revolution to free themselves from the ropes and chains, from the slavery of the industry! ;-) :-) Thanks, jm. -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Vogt Sent: Freitag, 10. November 2000 02:21 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: 2RE: [dvd-discuss] Regioncode -- that's what I call (mind) control! Juergen + Barbara wrote: > all TV sets, at least the 70cm and up, in (most of) Europe are multistandard already, supporting Secam (east), PAL, NTSC. > Videorecorders are available, too, even HiFi. weird, the last videorecorder I bought (not too long ago) is still PAL only. > The other arguments I listed still stand. > The different release windows are IMHO *not* the reason for Regioncode; as you still can get VCs shipped from, say, USA. yeah, but who buys the vc if he has dvd? I know I didn't buy a single vc since I have a dvd drive. and besides, the release window *is* the reason they're giving themselves when they pop their heads out of their asses and stop talking piracy this, piracy that. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Nov 12 20:30:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA08694 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:30:28 -0500 Received: from dial220.roadrunner.com (sf-du220.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.220]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA08691 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:30:24 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial220.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00857 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:20:44 -0700 Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:20:37 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) Message-ID: <20001112182037.A822@localhost> References: <200011101425.JAA07140@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <200011101520.KAA07260@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <3A0C212F.179B4352@travel-net.com> <200011101733.MAA08263@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200011101733.MAA08263@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 12:33:35PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 12:33:35PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > Dan Steinberg writes: > > Yes but remember that "substantial potential harm" is not a > > broad-brush magic wand you can wave and create a cause of action. > > Injunctions are granted under narrow circumstances. The mere > > existence of 'substantial potential harm' is not enough. You need > > a lot more. > > Could you be more specific? In patent cases, my general impression > that you don't need a whole lot more than a patent and a defendant who > you can credibly allege to be infringing the patent --- the patent > itself is presumed to be valid, for instance (which is one of the big > problems with, e.g., software patents, where PTO review of prior art > is routinely inadequate). > > [I'll cut this off if it gets too far off-topic, but I think there's a > principle of general interest here...] I think this is right on topic: It goes to the heart of the symmetry mentioned in _Fantasy v. Fogerty_. Here, the potential for harmful copying is a cause of plaintiffs' action, but that same "loss" of the potential for copying (infringing or not), is _de minimum_ for considerations of a fair use defense. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 13 06:01:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA16497 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:01:11 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA16494 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:01:08 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00773; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:01:27 GMT Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:01:27 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20001110160746.20734.qmail@web6404.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Pete Broule write: > > The only possible damaging use of deCSS (apart from allowing the > > manufacture > > of non-cartel DVD players) would be to allow someone with access to > > an > > industrial DVD pressing plant(*) to make (say) region-free variants > > of an > > offical DVD. > > And what about distributing the movie over the Internet? > Irrelevant, your honour! In order to distribute over the internet, some sort of heavily lossy compression must be used. Currently that technology seems to be MPEG-1 or MPEG-4 AFAIK (but then, I'm not into this sort of thing, so correct me if I'm wrong). By they time you've compressed a movie into a form usable for internet-transfer, it's so compressed that there's no improvement gained from starting with a DVD. You may as well have started from a VHS tape or (more likely) camcorder footage from inside a theatre. Speed is of the essence. Not many people are going to bother downloading a compressed movie over internet (spending $15 on the phone bill) when they could rent the DVD for $3 down at the corner shop. Or have I missed something? (One thing I might have missed: there might exist an all-digital DVD -> MPEG 4 conversion route that results in better compression for the MPEG 4 than could be obtained by digitising some other analog format and compressing that. But again, I reckon that once the official DVD is out, the market for the inferior pirate copy would dry up.) -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 13 11:18:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20888 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:18:44 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20885 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:18:43 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:18:55 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:18:53 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/13/2000 08:18:54 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 still haven't answered the question. How is it enhanced? Yes I'd rather watch StarWars on a big screen. Ditto for Koyaanisqatsi- And just take any of the latest crop of special effects sturm und drang - they look stupid on a small screen and actually not much better on the big screen once you stop oooooohhhhing and awwwwwwwing. I have no doubt that the QUANTITY of the difference is quite noticable for something 6mx3m. Depending on the film, the quality of viewing may not be. Few dramas actually require something that big and some would suffer considerably (expecially some of the ones developed for TV which planned for the viewing screen to be small). Tom Vogt Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) 11/10/00 04:42 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > that then it must be a pretty boring movie you are watching. How does one's > life get enhanced from watching HDTV rather than NTSC? Or DVD rather than > VHS? I own a beamer, meaning that I watch movies in 3 by 2 *metres*. believe me, the quality difference between VHS and DVD is very visible at that size. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 13 11:31:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA21321 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:31:45 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA21318 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:31:40 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:31:44 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:31:43 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/13/2000 08:31:44 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Correct. That was the flaw in their arguments that the defense did not exploit. "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat arvard.edu lex (was: Re: Practical magic) 11/13/00 03:07 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Pete Broule write: > > The only possible damaging use of deCSS (apart from allowing the > > manufacture > > of non-cartel DVD players) would be to allow someone with access to > > an > > industrial DVD pressing plant(*) to make (say) region-free variants > > of an > > offical DVD. > > And what about distributing the movie over the Internet? > Irrelevant, your honour! In order to distribute over the internet, some sort of heavily lossy compression must be used. Currently that technology seems to be MPEG-1 or MPEG-4 AFAIK (but then, I'm not into this sort of thing, so correct me if I'm wrong). By they time you've compressed a movie into a form usable for internet-transfer, it's so compressed that there's no improvement gained from starting with a DVD. You may as well have started from a VHS tape or (more likely) camcorder footage from inside a theatre. Speed is of the essence. Not many people are going to bother downloading a compressed movie over internet (spending $15 on the phone bill) when they could rent the DVD for $3 down at the corner shop. Or have I missed something? (One thing I might have missed: there might exist an all-digital DVD -> MPEG 4 conversion route that results in better compression for the MPEG 4 than could be obtained by digitising some other analog format and compressing that. But again, I reckon that once the official DVD is out, the market for the inferior pirate copy would dry up.) -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 13 12:52:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA22645 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:52:30 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA22642 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:52:28 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:41:59 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:53:11 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:53:11 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) Message-ID: <20001113165311.B20449@lemuria.org> References: <20001110160746.20734.qmail@web6404.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:01:27AM +0000 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Hosgood wrote: > Or have I missed something? flatrate. many people do not pay by the minute. they will simply downloading uncompressed DVDs during the night. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 13 15:40:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA25502 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:40:47 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA25499 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:40:44 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:30:08 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:52:11 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:52:11 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) Message-ID: <20001113185211.A20871@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 08:18:53AM -0800 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > You still haven't answered the question. How is it enhanced? that's definitely a personal call, and I can only speak for myself, but I *do* enjoy the difference in picture/sound quality and consider it an enhancement. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 13 16:09:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA26629 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:09:50 -0500 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 QAA26626 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:09:49 -0500 Received: from [204.1.1.128] ([204.1.1.128] verified) by cyclesoftware.com (Stalker SMTP Server 1.8b6) with ESMTP id S.0000728809 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:09:46 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: steve_bryan@mail.mac.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:10:44 -0600 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: steve bryan Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 1:34 PM -0800 11/10/00, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >Because you CAN do something, is that any reason for doing it? > >You CAN watch HDTV or the DVD on your computer. Wonderful. Do you really >want to do so? Are you sitting comfortably for a couple of hours hunched >over the screen? The images may be so much clearer but if you're admiring >that then it must be a pretty boring movie you are watching. How does one's >life get enhanced from watching HDTV rather than NTSC? Or DVD rather than >VHS? I feel slightly guilty for replying when this discussion is wandering from the subject of the list but some of the implicit assertions are remarkably odd. For instance DVD vs VHS? Do you think a movie is produced with all the attention to detail only to have it vanish when transferred to VHS? The quality (or lack thereof) in a VHS print is not the natural state to which we should compare DVD, but rather the original print. So when the judge suggested that fair use could be served by allowing "quotations" from a VHS source I think he was wrong on several counts. On the issue of "Do you really want to do so?" the answer is a resounding YES. The reason why is obvious after very little examination. It is so much less expensive than any other option assuming you have an available PCI slot, which tens of millions of families do. The combination of a receiver, recorder, and enhancer for other signal sources all for $400 is almost too good to be believed. Now a person could be utterly uninterested in HDTV, DVD, and computer entertainment (aka synthetic, interactive digital TV) but then what would be the motivation for following the discussion on this list? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 13 18:07:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA30320 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:07:57 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA30273 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:07:56 -0500 Received: from ip202.bedford7.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.77.202]) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 13vSi0-0004iw-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:08:17 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:14:14 -0500 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 SAA30279 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:18:53 -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > >You still haven't answered the question. How is it enhanced? HDTV has terrific applications besides entertainment--distance medicine and teaching technical processes are two. Certainly this is not NBC/CBS' focus. But having the facilities available to broadcast HDTV means local affiliates will also be more comfortable and apt at using amateur digital video and other sources than just what comes to them via satellite. It's all part and parcel of a DV revolution. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 13 18:45:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA32008 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:45:04 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA32005 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:45:02 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:45:15 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:45:14 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/13/2000 03:45:15 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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. It is a personal call. That was actually the point I was getting at (albeit not well written). Personally, the type of enhancement is not worth that much to me. I'd rather watch the compete film on a night of bad reception rather than an edited version no matter how clear. (cut out the next to the last reel of 2001 and the whole film goes from thought provoking to no sense..a theatre did that in my hometown). The same for having something that I can't fast forward, stop, pause SKIP over. Also, I don't WANT the humungous screen and player taking up most of my one room but I also don't want something forced upon me which is better than I really want. The issue is what is the cost and is it worth it to an individual or to the population as a whole. If the cost of DVDs is perpetual copyright with that notion going over to literary works, books, manuals, music, that's too much of a price to pay for the population to pay as a whole but not too much for an individual. None of the works created in my lifetime would be entering the public domain in my lifetime but I might have enjoyed some of the works from the silent era that would have or Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue by the Beach Cities Symphony (I wondered why they seem to premier so many works and it wasn't until recently I realized - no royalties). Hence my comments about enriching. There have been a number of commetns regarding the fact that DVD Audio hasn't been release to enrich the American People because of the DeCSS. Is it enriching their lives, or merely the pockets of the content providers as they exert more control than they have ever had before? Tom Vogt Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) 11/13/00 12:44 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > You still haven't answered the question. How is it enhanced? that's definitely a personal call, and I can only speak for myself, but I *do* enjoy the difference in picture/sound quality and consider it an enhancement. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 13 18:52:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA32308 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:52:22 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA32305 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:52:18 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:52:28 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:52:26 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/13/2000 03:52:28 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 I conceed that those are two applications. Certainly i wouldn't want somebody performing open heart surgery if they had only seen it before on a VHS tape.....well maybe I'd want them to have a teacher work them through the first time even if they had seen it on HDTV ;-) WRT to those two, I've found that for extremly technical presentations, face to face or written is best. I've also found that what I saw on the screen was less useful when I didn't have the notes to accompany the lecture before hand. Also, the lecture tended to pace the material better. I don't know if that process would necessarily be enhanced by HDTV. Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards arvard.edu (was: Practical magic) 11/13/00 03:10 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:18:53 -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > >You still haven't answered the question. How is it enhanced? HDTV has terrific applications besides entertainment--distance medicine and teaching technical processes are two. Certainly this is not NBC/CBS' focus. But having the facilities available to broadcast HDTV means local affiliates will also be more comfortable and apt at using amateur digital video and other sources than just what comes to them via satellite. It's all part and parcel of a DV revolution. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 13 19:00:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA32516 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:00:51 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA32513 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:00:49 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:00:37 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:00:36 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/13/2000 04:00:37 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu My point I was making was that all of this is the smoke that the MPAA and Jack Valenti WANT people to believe but is it really the case? They are enriching the lives of everybody with the new stuff but when it comes down to watching a VHS tape vs DVD it may look nicer but is it really necessary? Do you laugh harder when watching a comedy? Do you feel sadder when the hero dies at the end? Hey I only do high tech solutions to low tech problems for a living, it doesn't mean that I do them at home ;-) steve bryan To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards arvard.edu (was: Practical magic) 11/13/00 01:12 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 1:34 PM -0800 11/10/00, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >Because you CAN do something, is that any reason for doing it? > >You CAN watch HDTV or the DVD on your computer. Wonderful. Do you really >want to do so? Are you sitting comfortably for a couple of hours hunched >over the screen? The images may be so much clearer but if you're admiring >that then it must be a pretty boring movie you are watching. How does one's >life get enhanced from watching HDTV rather than NTSC? Or DVD rather than >VHS? I feel slightly guilty for replying when this discussion is wandering from the subject of the list but some of the implicit assertions are remarkably odd. For instance DVD vs VHS? Do you think a movie is produced with all the attention to detail only to have it vanish when transferred to VHS? The quality (or lack thereof) in a VHS print is not the natural state to which we should compare DVD, but rather the original print. So when the judge suggested that fair use could be served by allowing "quotations" from a VHS source I think he was wrong on several counts. On the issue of "Do you really want to do so?" the answer is a resounding YES. The reason why is obvious after very little examination. It is so much less expensive than any other option assuming you have an available PCI slot, which tens of millions of families do. The combination of a receiver, recorder, and enhancer for other signal sources all for $400 is almost too good to be believed. Now a person could be utterly uninterested in HDTV, DVD, and computer entertainment (aka synthetic, interactive digital TV) but then what would be the motivation for following the discussion on this list? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 13 19:11:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA00913 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:11:09 -0500 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 TAA00910 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:11:06 -0500 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 SAA20155 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:11:27 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A1091A3.41BC94FD@uic.edu> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:13:07 -0600 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] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > My point I was making was that all of this is the > smoke that the MPAA and Jack Valenti WANT > people to believe but is it really the case? They are > enriching the lives of everybody with the new stuff > but when it comes down to watching a VHS tape vs > DVD it may look nicer but is it really necessary? > Do you laugh harder when watching a comedy? > Do you feel sadder when the hero dies at the end? People were asking the same questions when sound was added to movies. Some people thought that it detracted from the "art" of film. Same thing when color was first introduced. "Does garish color enhance or detract from cinema?" Then the same thing happened in the 1950s with the introduction of "smell-o-vision." "Sure, it smells nice, but is this really necessary?" Fortunately, someone put their foot down on that one. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 13 19:37:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01578 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:37:00 -0500 Received: from dfawcus-laptop.cisco.com (isdn-nat-1.cisco.com [192.82.152.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA01575 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:36:59 -0500 Received: (qmail 852 invoked by uid 69022); 14 Nov 2000 00:37:04 -0000 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:36:42 +0000 From: Derek Fawcus To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] My response to DVD CCA summons Message-ID: <20001114003642.A845@dfawcus-gw-home.cisco.com> 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 In case anyone's interested, papers relating to my summons in the DVD CCA case can be found at http://www.employees.org/~dfawcus/ - it's pretty crappy html auto conversion, but what the hell. DF From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 13 19:39:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01758 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:39:19 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA01754 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:39:17 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:39:30 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:39:28 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/13/2000 04:39:30 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That is true but consider this. Creating Motion pictures got 30% into it because half of what you do isn't seen and it's in B&W and silent. Sound comes in and that puts 37% into it because now you don't have to read the subtitles.so how you are up to 67%. Then Color comes along and puts another 22%. Now you are up to 89%. OK so 70MM Dolby + sensuround gets you to 98.99% (thanks to the kids who won't shut up behind you) . DVD with a 6x3m screen with 30inch electrostatic speakers and a 15inch subwoofer gets you to 99.99999% in your own home. Norm Augustine called it the 90/10 law. 90% of your time is spent getting the last 10%. My corrolary is the 10/90 law. 10% of the time or money gets you the 90%. At what point does getting that last 10% really start to break the bank? And if the person that is trying to get me to buy into the last 10% has an interest in that, what is it? John Schulien Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV video cards (was: Practical magic) 11/13/00 04:13 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > My point I was making was that all of this is the > smoke that the MPAA and Jack Valenti WANT > people to believe but is it really the case? They are > enriching the lives of everybody with the new stuff > but when it comes down to watching a VHS tape vs > DVD it may look nicer but is it really necessary? > Do you laugh harder when watching a comedy? > Do you feel sadder when the hero dies at the end? People were asking the same questions when sound was added to movies. Some people thought that it detracted from the "art" of film. Same thing when color was first introduced. "Does garish color enhance or detract from cinema?" Then the same thing happened in the 1950s with the introduction of "smell-o-vision." "Sure, it smells nice, but is this really necessary?" Fortunately, someone put their foot down on that one. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 14 05:30:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA13661 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:30:14 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA13658 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:30:06 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03327; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:30:21 GMT Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:30:21 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20001113165311.B20449@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt wrote: > Steve Hosgood wrote: > > Or have I missed something? > > flatrate. > Never heard of it! Still, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course. Just not in Britain that's all. > > many people do not pay by the minute. they will simply download > uncompressed DVDs during the night. > > They'll need a longer than normal night! Maybe winter nights above the arctic or antarctic circles will be useful here..... By my experience, if you have an ISDN line offering 128K then you can get about 13 - 14kbytes/sec over it using TCP/IP over PPP. Assuming a DVD's contents is 9Gbytes it will take over 7 *days* continuous running to download a single DVD. And I'm not sure 9Gbytes is a fair guess. The disks can hold 18Gbytes and most movies have to do a layer-change. Maybe 12-14Gb would be more likely. My objections to the "download DVDs" scenario: 1) Not many people (in Britain at least) have 128K ISDN to their homes. Scale up the download time accordingly for the more likely case of a 56kb/sec modem. 2) Joe Public is 95% or more likely to be running Windoze on his PC. Windoze won't stay up long enough to do the download! 3) Windoze won't let you have file sizes in excess of 2Gbytes (is that still true?). 4) Even if Joe Public runs linux at home, I'd like to know the chance that one can expect his machine, the ISP's machine, the originating server and all the routers in between to stay up for maybe 14-21 days continuously (assuming 9Gbytes over a 56kb/sec - 64kb/sec line) to allow this monster download. In Britain, some ISPs will chuck you off after N hours continuous connection anyway. 5) After this has been done, everyone has to cluster around the 15"/17"/19" monitor of the PC to watch the results. Or maybe the computer has a TV output card? Still - is there such a thing as an RGB/SCART TV output card? If not the PC -> TV link will be composite or S/Video and thus not so good. Maybe things are different in Germany or the 'States? Dammit, it would take me *25 hours* to download 9Gbytes here at work with a 2Mb/sec leased line (over which I rarely see much better than 100kbytes/sec to any external internet sites). I think I'll stick to going down to the corner shop and renting DVDs for UK$3.00! -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 14 10:03:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA21856 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:03:25 -0500 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 KAA21853 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:03:24 -0500 Message-ID: <20001114150316.24149.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.4] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 07:03:16 PST Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 07:03:16 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My response to DVD CCA summons 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 --- Derek Fawcus wrote: > In case anyone's interested, papers relating to my summons in the > DVD CCA case can be found at http://www.employees.org/~dfawcus/ - > it's pretty crappy html auto conversion, but what the hell. It seems pretty clear to me that you aren't subject to CA jurisdiction, but these things are producing bizarre trial judge rulings, so we'll have to see. You might want to let your lawyers know about the very recent 3rd Circuit Case BP v Formosa, No. 98-5468 (3rd Cir. 10/3/2000). See the link below. It adopted the principle that only Taiwan (the nation in question) should decide what is in the Taiwanese public domain, and rejected a trade secret claim for lack of jurisdiction over acts committed abroad. http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg09079.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! http://calendar.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 14 10:41:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA22396 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:41:17 -0500 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 KAA22393 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:41:16 -0500 Received: from [204.1.1.128] ([204.1.1.128] verified) by cyclesoftware.com (Stalker SMTP Server 1.8b6) with ESMTP id S.0000729571 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:41:09 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: steve_bryan@mail.mac.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:42:15 -0600 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: steve bryan Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) 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 10:30 AM +0000 11/14/00, Steve Hosgood wrote: >Maybe things are different in Germany or the 'States? Dammit, it would take >me *25 hours* to download 9Gbytes here at work with a 2Mb/sec leased >line (over >which I rarely see much better than 100kbytes/sec to any external internet >sites). Let's just say things continue to evolve. Yesterday there was an article on the NYTimes web site about a new service rolling out in four US cities that was offering 100 mbps service for a flat rate of $1,000 per month. The current services masquerading as broadband are just kludges retrofitted on whatever the current copper monopoly had available. As those monopolies are cracked open we might have enough bandwidth available so that the MPAA's worse nightmares are no longer fantasy (10 GB across 100 mbps in 100 * 8 seconds or less than 15 minutes). I don't claim this is a meaningful reality today or tomorrow, but it seems disingenuous to imply it won't be true some time soon. How you act based on that insight makes all the difference (e.g. one might adopt the "Blazing Saddles" response - "Quick, we have to do something to protect our phony baloney jobs!") From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 14 11:38:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA25883 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:38:33 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA25880 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:38:32 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:38:47 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My response to DVD CCA summons To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:38:45 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/14/2000 08:38:47 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 would be hard pressed to enforce a judgement in absentia either. Bryan Taylor To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My response to DVD arvard.edu CCA summons 11/14/00 07:16 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss --- Derek Fawcus wrote: > In case anyone's interested, papers relating to my summons in the > DVD CCA case can be found at http://www.employees.org/~dfawcus/ - > it's pretty crappy html auto conversion, but what the hell. It seems pretty clear to me that you aren't subject to CA jurisdiction, but these things are producing bizarre trial judge rulings, so we'll have to see. You might want to let your lawyers know about the very recent 3rd Circuit Case BP v Formosa, No. 98-5468 (3rd Cir. 10/3/2000). See the link below. It adopted the principle that only Taiwan (the nation in question) should decide what is in the Taiwanese public domain, and rejected a trade secret claim for lack of jurisdiction over acts committed abroad. http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg09079.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! http://calendar.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 14 11:53:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30250 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:53:05 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA30247 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:53:02 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:53:20 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practicalmagic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:53:18 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/14/2000 08:53:20 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 30days/mo * 24hrs/day * 60mins/hr / 15mins/DVD = 2880 movies available per month. $1000/2880 = 35cents each OK. the MPAA has a point there. It's definitly cheaper to watch movies over broadband. (anybody want to calculate how much storage one needs to save all of that data? I doubt that a DVD recorder can keep up with that rate) Of course the trick question is how many people are willing to pay $1000/mo for the line? And if they did, where would they keep the 2880 DVDs they copied much less find time to watch them. Reductio ad absurdum. What's the damage they are doing to the Studios revenue? De minimus non curat lex The copper monopoly isn't the only one. RIAA, MPAA, etc have created entertainment monopolies, trusts, and cartels. If these were broken up using the Anti Trust laws and competition were introduced then prices should come down and why should people go to these lengths when things are available cheap. steve bryan To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat arvard.edu lex (was: Re: Practicalmagic) 11/14/00 07:43 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 10:30 AM +0000 11/14/00, Steve Hosgood wrote: >Maybe things are different in Germany or the 'States? Dammit, it would take >me *25 hours* to download 9Gbytes here at work with a 2Mb/sec leased >line (over >which I rarely see much better than 100kbytes/sec to any external internet >sites). Let's just say things continue to evolve. Yesterday there was an article on the NYTimes web site about a new service rolling out in four US cities that was offering 100 mbps service for a flat rate of $1,000 per month. The current services masquerading as broadband are just kludges retrofitted on whatever the current copper monopoly had available. As those monopolies are cracked open we might have enough bandwidth available so that the MPAA's worse nightmares are no longer fantasy (10 GB across 100 mbps in 100 * 8 seconds or less than 15 minutes). I don't claim this is a meaningful reality today or tomorrow, but it seems disingenuous to imply it won't be true some time soon. How you act based on that insight makes all the difference (e.g. one might adopt the "Blazing Saddles" response - "Quick, we have to do something to protect our phony baloney jobs!") From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 14 15:01:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02552 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:01:00 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA02549 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:00:57 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:47:08 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 19:59:54 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 19:59:54 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practical magic) Message-ID: <20001114195954.B24515@lemuria.org> References: <20001113165311.B20449@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 10:30:21AM +0000 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Hosgood wrote: > By my experience, if you have an ISDN line offering 128K then you can get > about 13 - 14kbytes/sec over it using TCP/IP over PPP. Assuming a DVD's > contents is 9Gbytes it will take over 7 *days* continuous running to download > a single DVD. And I'm not sure 9Gbytes is a fair guess. The disks can hold > 18Gbytes and most movies have to do a layer-change. Maybe 12-14Gb would be > more likely. actual DVD movies usually have around 7 GB movie and 1-2 GB of features (trailers, etc). and don't forget that the movie mafia is arguing POTENTIAL harm. in *their* world, everyone has a free DSL or T1 line. > 1) Not many people (in Britain at least) have 128K ISDN to their homes. Scale > up the download time accordingly for the more likely case of a 56kb/sec modem. doesn't matter, see above. > 2) Joe Public is 95% or more likely to be running Windoze on his PC. Windoze > won't stay up long enough to do the download! but not an argument that is good in court except for a laugh or two. > 3) Windoze won't let you have file sizes in excess of 2Gbytes (is that still > true?). not a problem. the DVD specs split files at 1 GB boundaries. > 4) Even if Joe Public runs linux at home, I'd like to know the chance that one > can expect his machine, the ISP's machine, the originating server and all > the routers in between to stay up for maybe 14-21 days continuously (assuming > 9Gbytes over a 56kb/sec - 64kb/sec line) to allow this monster download. > In Britain, some ISPs will chuck you off after N hours continuous > connection anyway. see above: POTENTIALLY you can have a T1 at your home in a year or two... > 5) After this has been done, everyone has to cluster around the 15"/17"/19" > monitor of the PC to watch the results. Or maybe the computer has a TV > output card? Still - is there such a thing as an RGB/SCART TV output card? yes - I have one. > Maybe things are different in Germany or the 'States? Dammit, it would take > me *25 hours* to download 9Gbytes here at work with a 2Mb/sec leased line (over > which I rarely see much better than 100kbytes/sec to any external internet > sites). I know. I move a 9 GB database over a 2 mbit line once. good training for that "heavy, internet-wide DVD movie trading" the movie mafia is so afraid of. :) -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 14 20:09:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA10104 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:09:33 -0500 Received: from PROXY (cust-mits.optus.net.au [202.139.53.82] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA10101 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:09:28 -0500 Received: from 192.168.200.12 by PROXY (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:09:45 +0800 Received: by mits_perth_com1.mitswa.com.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:01:48 +0800 Message-ID: <54A50136B6CAD3118FBD00C00D00DDEF0373DF@mits_perth_com1.mitswa.com.au> From: "McMeikan, Andrew" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] FW: DVD-MP3 Sega Player...FREE Star Wars Movie Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:01:39 +0800 Importance: high X-Priority: 1 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Why is DeCSS so bad when this sort of stuff exists? I think the real harm to the MPAA is going to be something other than some Linux boxes watching movies. below is recently received message, encouraging DVD copying (presumably to VHS) cya, Andrew... - -----Original Message----- From: mp3segaplayer@yahoo.com [SMTP:mp3segaplayer@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 12:59 AM To: Undisclosed.Recipients@toad.com Subject: DVD-MP3 Sega Player...FREE Star Wars Movie Importance: High The 8050+ DVD PLAYER!!! PLAYS ALL DVDS, Mp3's and VCDS.......ALLOWS COPYING OF DVDS!! For more info or to place an order call: 1-800-659-1991 Special Offer Code: 300, without this code your order can't be processed. (Toll Free in U.S. Outside of U.S. receive $5.00 phone credit off order price) Did you know that with 6 different types of DVD disks on the market, not all players can play all DVDs?? That's right...The low end DVD models in most stores can't play all DVD movies!! Now, not available in U.S. stores , get a Region Free DVD Player capable off playing all types of DVDs!! Compare at thousands of dollars!! The 8050+ DVD,CD MP3 Player ..... REGION FREE ...Play DVDS from all over the world. The 8050+ DVD,CD MP 3 Player . Comparable to the $1500 DVD players found in Europe and Asia. Your Price: ONLY $249.95 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOhFyZEAhpS53eUNhEQLHGACferslBDt/XHV7jLzmQ97tlGYnlF0AnjTm WaOPiEQk56RvvSQ7cUOTNKWZ =lKa6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your system. Utility Services Corporation (USC) is not responsible for any changes made to the material other than those made by USC or for the effect of the changes on the meaning of the material. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 15 05:23:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA15688 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 05:23:15 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA15685 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 05:23:14 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04881; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:23:38 GMT Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:23:38 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practicalmagic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Michael.A.Rolenz writes: > 30days/mo * 24hrs/day * 60mins/hr / 15mins/DVD = 2880 movies available per > month. > $1000/2880 = 35cents each > > OK. the MPAA has a point there. It's definitly cheaper to watch movies over > broadband. > However, that's not a realistic scenario! Look instead at an extreme (but not ridiculous) alternative - someone who watches a DVD every night. That's 30 DVDs per month, and the line costs $1000 a month. That's $33.33 per DVD. You can *buy* them for almost half that! ------------------------------- A better scary scenario might be the concept of 'streaming DVD'. Here, you don't bother to store the data locally, just get the DVD data sent at about 8Mbit/sec and watch it in real time. An 8Mbit/sec line should cost less than the $1000/month stated for the 100Mbit/sec line proposed above. However, my experience with file transfer over internet here is that you're lucky to achieve a tenth of this data-rate in reality due to other bottlenecks in the system. Not only that, but anyone operating a "DVD stream server" would certainly be breaking all known existing ("fair") copyright laws, would stand out like a sore thumb, and would be easy for the MPAA to target. The MPAA could get back to what they should be doing - finding and prosecuting pirates, and leave alone innocent people who just want to make fair use of the DVDs they've legally bought. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 15 10:50:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA18454 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:50:02 -0500 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 KAA18451 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:49:58 -0500 Received: from [209.46.107.185] ([209.46.107.185] verified) by cyclesoftware.com (Stalker SMTP Server 1.8b6) with ESMTP id S.0000730893 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:49:53 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: steve_bryan@mail.mac.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:50:52 -0600 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: steve bryan Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practicalmagic) 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 10:23 am +0000 11/15/2000, Steve Hosgood wrote: >However, that's not a realistic scenario! Look instead at an extreme (but >not ridiculous) alternative - someone who watches a DVD every night. > >That's 30 DVDs per month, and the line costs $1000 a month. > >That's $33.33 per DVD. You can *buy* them for almost half that! I suppose I was not explicit enough but I thought the idea was sufficiently obvious. The $1,000 per month price is just a momentary price. That is what you pay today in any of those four cities from a bleeding edge technology company that is probably making significant profits. Just like the $800 9600 baud modem I have sitting on a shelf is a quaint artifact, any current price for a specific bandwidth is going to appear whacky eventually. The important point is that it is possible to offer such bandwidth to an end user (today). If we were limited to retrofitting one kludge or another onto legacy connections (phone or cable TV), then we would be hard pressed to ever exceed low integer megabit connections. But true broadband connectivity will make DVD's as potentially mobile as mp3's are today. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 15 10:55:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19229 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:55:06 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA19225 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:55:05 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:55:27 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FW: DVD-MP3 Sega Player...FREE Star Wars Movie To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:55:25 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/15/2000 07:55:27 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Oh...you can bet that the MPAA is probably calling them right now..... "McMeikan, Andrew" Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] FW: DVD-MP3 Sega arvard.edu Player...FREE Star Wars Movie 11/14/00 05:11 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Why is DeCSS so bad when this sort of stuff exists? I think the real harm to the MPAA is going to be something other than some Linux boxes watching movies. below is recently received message, encouraging DVD copying (presumably to VHS) cya, Andrew... - -----Original Message----- From: mp3segaplayer@yahoo.com [SMTP:mp3segaplayer@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 12:59 AM To: Undisclosed.Recipients@toad.com Subject: DVD-MP3 Sega Player...FREE Star Wars Movie Importance: High The 8050+ DVD PLAYER!!! PLAYS ALL DVDS, Mp3's and VCDS.......ALLOWS COPYING OF DVDS!! For more info or to place an order call: 1-800-659-1991 Special Offer Code: 300, without this code your order can't be processed. (Toll Free in U.S. Outside of U.S. receive $5.00 phone credit off order price) Did you know that with 6 different types of DVD disks on the market, not all players can play all DVDs?? That's right...The low end DVD models in most stores can't play all DVD movies!! Now, not available in U.S. stores , get a Region Free DVD Player capable off playing all types of DVDs!! Compare at thousands of dollars!! The 8050+ DVD,CD MP3 Player ..... REGION FREE ...Play DVDS from all over the world. The 8050+ DVD,CD MP 3 Player . Comparable to the $1500 DVD players found in Europe and Asia. Your Price: ONLY $249.95 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOhFyZEAhpS53eUNhEQLHGACferslBDt/XHV7jLzmQ97tlGYnlF0AnjTm WaOPiEQk56RvvSQ7cUOTNKWZ =lKa6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your system. Utility Services Corporation (USC) is not responsible for any changes made to the material other than those made by USC or for the effect of the changes on the meaning of the material. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 15 11:27:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA19456 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:27:03 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA19453 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:27:02 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:27:16 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practicalmagic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:27:15 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/15/2000 08:27:16 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Whether somebody is downloading them for 2880/365days/yr=7.9yrs of viewing or something more reasonable it's still a ridiculous arguement they are proposing. Assuming you could get T1 rates it's still over 14hrs for a 10GB DVD. You'd need about 10xT1 speeds to watch it in real time. And as you point out, it should become pretty apparent to the ISPs and the MPAA if it were being done (the traffic statistics should light up the ISPs network control). It's a pretty irrational fear they have but people who are into "control" tend to get like that when their control is threatened (ever played mind games with a control freak? They get really out of whack when you change the game on them.) The MPAA should stick to going after REAL pirates and stop trying to exert the control again that the studios had in the late 1940s over all aspects of distribution and viewing. They need to realize that as PUBLISHERS of copyrighted material they are in a different position than when they were licensing for distribution and viewing in theatres. One Aspect of this De minimis non curat lex is that the studios keep asserting that home copying is killing them. That their profits are way down from what they (think) they should be. Does anybody know of any studies, analyses that they have presented to corroborate this? They have asserted it and hinted at it in court yet I saw no evidence. Does any body have ANY information on this? I'd really like to look at their "methodology" "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat arvard.edu lex (was: Re: Practicalmagic) 11/15/00 02:31 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael.A.Rolenz writes: > 30days/mo * 24hrs/day * 60mins/hr / 15mins/DVD = 2880 movies available per > month. > $1000/2880 = 35cents each > > OK. the MPAA has a point there. It's definitly cheaper to watch movies over > broadband. > However, that's not a realistic scenario! Look instead at an extreme (but not ridiculous) alternative - someone who watches a DVD every night. That's 30 DVDs per month, and the line costs $1000 a month. That's $33.33 per DVD. You can *buy* them for almost half that! ------------------------------- A better scary scenario might be the concept of 'streaming DVD'. Here, you don't bother to store the data locally, just get the DVD data sent at about 8Mbit/sec and watch it in real time. An 8Mbit/sec line should cost less than the $1000/month stated for the 100Mbit/sec line proposed above. However, my experience with file transfer over internet here is that you're lucky to achieve a tenth of this data-rate in reality due to other bottlenecks in the system. Not only that, but anyone operating a "DVD stream server" would certainly be breaking all known existing ("fair") copyright laws, would stand out like a sore thumb, and would be easy for the MPAA to target. The MPAA could get back to what they should be doing - finding and prosecuting pirates, and leave alone innocent people who just want to make fair use of the DVDs they've legally bought. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 15 11:26:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA19448 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:26:52 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA19445 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:26:50 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05785; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:27:15 GMT Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:27:15 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practicalmagic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Bryan wrtes: > At 10:23 am +0000 11/15/2000, Steve Hosgood wrote: > >That's $33.33 per DVD. You can *buy* them for almost half that! > > I suppose I was not explicit enough but I thought the idea was > sufficiently obvious. The $1,000 per month price is just a momentary > price. That is what you pay today.... > OK, point taken, but I was also making a side point - it doesn't matter how fast your individual line-to-home is, it's the rest of the internet that matters. Of course, in the majorly long run, you're still right. Eventually the entire internet will be running 100 or 1000Mb/sec lines and DVDs may indeed become mobile. As for when to expect that day, I'm not sure. I've been on internet since 1988 and have seen no clear sign of an equivalent of "Moore's Law" for overall internet download times. I suppose it's because though link speeds are increasing, so is the number of users. I'm not sure the MPAA's nightmare scenario is going to happen RSN. ---------------------------------------------- Anyway - that's not what we're discussing on this list! We're surely more interested in whether the DVDCCA have a right to encrypt the disks *we've* bought legally and then not tell us how it's done and try to prosecute people who find out how it's done and tell others. The MPAA could earn lots of money and keep themselves busy for ever if they searched out and shut down all the pirates who sell dodgy pirated VHS tapes on the market stalls in almost every town of every country of the world. But that's too hard for them. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 15 11:40:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA19662 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:40:55 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA19658 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:40:50 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:41:06 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat lex (was: Re: Practicalmagic) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:41:03 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/15/2000 08:41:06 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 I tend to snicker a bit when I hear "brilliant futurists" proclaiming that the internet will be the next broadcast media. A little knowledge of networking, graph theory (ie. directed capacity flow graphs), queuing theory and communications technology may alter that prophecy slightly. I've been on the Internet since 1989 and I've seen the same thing. It's more like thermodynamics-increase the volumn and the gas expands to fill the space except in the case of the internet it's more like filling a balloon. Finding dodgy pirate tapes that rip off both the studios and the public! How dare you suggest that the MPAA should be doing that. Afterall they have to protect their phoney baloney jobs and if you try something hard you may fail! "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] De minimis non curat arvard.edu lex (was: Re: Practicalmagic) 11/15/00 08:30 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Steve Bryan wrtes: > At 10:23 am +0000 11/15/2000, Steve Hosgood wrote: > >That's $33.33 per DVD. You can *buy* them for almost half that! > > I suppose I was not explicit enough but I thought the idea was > sufficiently obvious. The $1,000 per month price is just a momentary > price. That is what you pay today.... > OK, point taken, but I was also making a side point - it doesn't matter how fast your individual line-to-home is, it's the rest of the internet that matters. Of course, in the majorly long run, you're still right. Eventually the entire internet will be running 100 or 1000Mb/sec lines and DVDs may indeed become mobile. As for when to expect that day, I'm not sure. I've been on internet since 1988 and have seen no clear sign of an equivalent of "Moore's Law" for overall internet download times. I suppose it's because though link speeds are increasing, so is the number of users. I'm not sure the MPAA's nightmare scenario is going to happen RSN. ---------------------------------------------- Anyway - that's not what we're discussing on this list! We're surely more interested in whether the DVDCCA have a right to encrypt the disks *we've* bought legally and then not tell us how it's done and try to prosecute people who find out how it's done and tell others. The MPAA could earn lots of money and keep themselves busy for ever if they searched out and shut down all the pirates who sell dodgy pirated VHS tapes on the market stalls in almost every town of every country of the world. But that's too hard for them. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 15 12:59:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA20994 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:59:10 -0500 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 MAA20991 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:59:09 -0500 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4001) id 1BA4199C80; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:59:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04AB2938C0 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:59:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:59:33 -0800 (PST) From: Ken Arromdee To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FW: DVD-MP3 Sega Player...FREE Star Wars Movie In-Reply-To: <54A50136B6CAD3118FBD00C00D00DDEF0373DF@mits_perth_com1.mitswa.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, McMeikan, Andrew wrote: > Subject: [dvd-discuss] FW: DVD-MP3 Sega Player...FREE Star Wars Movie > Why is DeCSS so bad when this sort of stuff exists? Because the MPAA is not really concerned about piracy, they're concerned about losing their monopoly on licenses. DeCSS threatens that, piracy doesn't. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 15 14:05:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA21955 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:05:29 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA21952 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:05:26 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:05:45 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FW: DVD-MP3 Sega Player...FREE Star Wars Movie To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:05:44 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/15/2000 11:05:45 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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's been said before in this thread but the issue with the MPAA is not piracy. It's C O N T R O L. Ken Arromdee To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FW: DVD-MP3 Sega Player...FREE Star Wars Movie 11/15/00 10:03 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, McMeikan, Andrew wrote: > Subject: [dvd-discuss] FW: DVD-MP3 Sega Player...FREE Star Wars Movie > Why is DeCSS so bad when this sort of stuff exists? Because the MPAA is not really concerned about piracy, they're concerned about losing their monopoly on licenses. DeCSS threatens that, piracy doesn't. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 15 22:28:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA15537 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:28:30 -0500 Received: from myriad (MYRIAD.REM.CMU.EDU [128.2.82.122]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA15534 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:28:28 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by myriad (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id TAA09077; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:24:28 -0800 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:24:28 -0800 Message-Id: <200011160324.TAA09077@myriad> From: ghio@_nospam_altavista.net (Matthew Ghio) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] My response to DVD CCA summons In-Reply-To: <20001114150316.24149.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote to Derek Fawcus: > It seems pretty clear to me that you aren't subject to CA jurisdiction, > but these things are producing bizarre trial judge rulings, so we'll > have to see. True, but I don't think that's really the point of this excercise. Matthew Pavlovich made a similar motion and Judge Elfving denied it without comment. Of course, the defense would like the Court of Appeals to do something about this clear abuse of discretion. The problem is that there are thousands of cases in the court system, and unless someone makes a lot of noise about it, this case could sit for months without action. Hence the present motion. So either the judge denies it, and gives the defense more ammunition to take to the appellate court, or he grants it, in which case he has some explaining to do regarding Pavlovich's motion. Not a bad strategy either way. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 16 15:20:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA29262 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:20:20 -0500 Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net (barry.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA29259 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:20:15 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2inig5e.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.64.174]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA07488 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:20:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011162020.PAA07488@barry.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:14:57 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] SecDef to Honor Valenti In-Reply-To: <200011160324.TAA09077@myriad> References: <20001114150316.24149.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 November 16, 2000 SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO HONOR JACK VALENTI WITH CITIZEN PATRIOT AWARD Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and his wife, Janet Langhart Cohen, will host a dinner in Los Angeles, Thurs., Nov. 30, to honor Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, for his efforts to encourage positive portrayal of the US military through film and television. Valenti is a highly decorated World War II Army Air Corps pilot who flew more than 50 combat missions over Italy. Secretary Cohen will present Valenti with the first "Citizen Patriot" award, which is being established to recognize individuals, groups and organizations for outstanding efforts on behalf of America's men and women in uniform. This includes efforts to identify and bring to public attention the contributions of American troops at home and abroad. The United Service Organizations (USO) will participate in the event with a program featuring music performed by military groups representing all five Services and the National Guard and Reserve. Retired Army Gen. John Tilelli, president and chief executive officer of the World USO and former commander of U.S. forces in Korea, and Mrs. Cohen also will present the "Spirit of Hope" award to namesake and USO icon, Bob Hope. Hope's son, Tony, is expected to accept the award on behalf of his father. Johnny Grant, USO board member, ceremonial "Mayor of Hollywood" and participant in more than 50 overseas USO shows spanning half a century, will serve as honorary chair of a host committee of entertainment community leaders, many of whom have incorporated military themes into award-winning films. The committee includes Paul Bloch, Jerry Bruckheimer, Leonard Goldberg, Ward Grant, Merv Griffin, Peter Guber, Quincy Jones, Sherry Lansing, Mike Medavoy, Steven Spielberg, Jerry Weintraub and Jim Wiatt. This recognition is part of the Cohens' ongoing efforts to reconnect America's military and key segments of American society, in order to bring to public attention the multifaceted roles of America's men and women in uniform. The Cohens' reconnect effort has included groups ranging from state legislators in Illinois to high-tech workers in Washington State. A special effort for this event has been made to invite emerging writers, producers, directors and other entertainment industry professionals who will be responsible for the development and production of film and television projects for years to come. -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 16 19:40:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA32704 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 19:40:52 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA32701 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 19:40:50 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:32:08 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:24:55 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:24:55 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] SecDef to Honor Valenti Message-ID: <20001116222455.A464@lemuria.org> References: <20001114150316.24149.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> <200011160324.TAA09077@myriad> <200011162020.PAA07488@barry.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200011162020.PAA07488@barry.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 03:14:57PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Young wrote: > November 16, 2000 > > SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO HONOR JACK VALENTI > WITH CITIZEN PATRIOT AWARD I feel sick, and it's not just because of jack. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 17 13:11:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14063 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:11:21 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14060 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:11:20 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.9.3 (PHNE_21697)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18855 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:11:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001115110520.01a9aa20@seltzer.com> X-Sender: wendy@seltzer.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:11:26 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: [dvd-discuss] Kaplan discusses DMCA 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 Kaplan on the DMCA and Universal v. Reimerdes: (Will Wired News incur the MPAA's wrath for linking to DeCSS?) Also as noted there, appellant's brief is scheduled for December 20, which would indicate that their amici file by Dec. 27. Given the holiday season, the parties may seek a continuance to extend those dates. --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 Nov 17 13:27:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14419 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:27:30 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14415 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:27:29 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id NAA05846 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:28:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id NAA29796; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:28:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:28:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011171828.NAA29796@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Kaplan discusses DMCA In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20001115110520.01a9aa20@seltzer.com> References: <4.2.2.20001115110520.01a9aa20@seltzer.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Wendy Seltzer writes: > Kaplan on the DMCA and Universal v. Reimerdes: > One odd bit: Kaplan is reported as saying that: Judges are not best suited to deal with cases like theese. Judges are best suited to deal with matters between private parties.... Judges do not have any special training to rule on decisions such as these and lack the objective perspective to make those best decisions. This appears (on page 2) in quotes, so it seems that these are his own words. Am I missing something here? I thought it was a judge's job to be impartial. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 17 13:32:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14614 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:32:44 -0500 Received: from spdmraab.compuserve.com (ds-img-rel-2.compuserve.com [149.174.206.155]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14610 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:32:40 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id NAA13819 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:32:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mic667 (sfr-tgn-sfa-vty51.as.wcom.net [216.192.3.51]) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id NAA13796; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:32:36 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] SecDef to Honor Valenti -- certainly much more awards to come!? Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:33:20 -0800 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <200011162020.PAA07488@barry.mail.mindspring.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu and soon we will see: "...to honor Charlton Heston, president of the NRA, for his efforts to encourage and promote violence and excessive gun use as positive portrayal through film and television." "...to honor Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA, for his efforts to encourage positive marketing of rated and violent movies to minors through film and television." ;-) *jm* -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of John Young Sent: Donnerstag, 16. November 2000 12:15 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] SecDef to Honor Valenti November 16, 2000 SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO HONOR JACK VALENTI WITH CITIZEN PATRIOT AWARD (...) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 17 13:32:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA14590 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:32:00 -0500 Received: from mail.travel-net.com (root@mail.travel-net.com [204.92.71.26]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14587 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:31:58 -0500 Received: from travel-net.com (trj97.travel-net.com [207.176.160.97]) by mail.travel-net.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01653 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:32:09 -0500 Message-ID: <3A157971.4836F36C@travel-net.com> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:31:13 -0500 From: Dan Steinberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Kaplan discusses DMCA References: <4.2.2.20001115110520.01a9aa20@seltzer.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 HO HO HO I should HOpe so... Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Kaplan on the DMCA and Universal v. Reimerdes: > > (Will Wired News incur the MPAA's wrath for linking to DeCSS?) > > Also as noted there, appellant's brief is scheduled for December 20, which > would indicate that their amici file by Dec. 27. Given the holiday season, > the parties may seek a continuance to extend those dates. > > --Wendy > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@vrx.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 17 14:04:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA15194 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:04:26 -0500 Received: from dial185.roadrunner.com (sf-du185.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.185]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA15190 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:04:19 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial185.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA01006 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:54:42 -0700 Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:54:42 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Kaplan discusses DMCA Message-ID: <20001117115442.A985@localhost> References: <4.2.2.20001115110520.01a9aa20@seltzer.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20001115110520.01a9aa20@seltzer.com>; from wendy@seltzer.com on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 01:11:26PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 01:11:26PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Kaplan on the DMCA and Universal v. Reimerdes: > > (Will Wired News incur the MPAA's wrath for linking to DeCSS?) > > Also as noted there, appellant's brief is scheduled for December 20, which > would indicate that their amici file by Dec. 27. Given the holiday season, > the parties may seek a continuance to extend those dates. This is even more bizarre than his decision! He knew that the law would at a minimum need revision, but ignored any significant exploration of the constitutional basis for this law, nor did he every seriously examine his flawed reading of the law. I guess defendant shopping pays a much heftier dividend than I though possible. I'll venture a guess --- that Kaplan thinks the needed revision is to remove the words "no prior restraint" from 1203(c). So, is there a transcript from the American Univ. symposium? Strangle that golden goose my friend! If the eggs taste good, the flesh will be better. Too bad that engineers and scientists are the geese. Honk, honk. Paul Fenimore P.S. Just so no one is under the false impression that Wired has a clue in this matter, take a look at the title of the HTML doc: "DVD Piracy Judge Tells All" From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 17 14:15:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA15466 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:15:27 -0500 Received: from dial185.roadrunner.com (sf-du185.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.185]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA15463 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:15:23 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial185.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01103 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:05:42 -0700 Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:05:41 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Kaplan discusses DMCA Message-ID: <20001117120541.A1088@localhost> References: <4.2.2.20001115110520.01a9aa20@seltzer.com> <20001117115442.A985@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001117115442.A985@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 11:54:42AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore wrote: > remove the words "no prior restraint" from 1203(c). So, is there a > transcript from the American Univ. symposium? I don't think there is a transcript on-line: Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 17 14:27:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA15770 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:27:30 -0500 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 OAA15767 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:27:25 -0500 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 NAA12486 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:27:54 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A1594EE.8B5B3A22@uic.edu> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:28:30 -0600 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] Kaplan discusses his own incompetency Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Robert S. Thau writes: > One odd bit: Kaplan is reported as saying that: >> Judges are not best suited to deal with cases like theese. Judges are >> best suited to deal with matters between private parties.... Judges do >> not have any special training to rule on decisions such as these and >> lack the objective perspective to make those best decisions. Hmmph. The man should speak for himself. There are many talented judges who approach their cases with an objective perspective, and reach self-consistant, fair, well-supported and well-reasoned verdicts on these sorts of issues. His insistance that all judges are as poor jurists as himself is an insult to his colleagues and his office. If Kaplan felt that he was unqualified to handle this case, or even worse, felt that he personally lacked objectivity, then he had no business trying it. He should have stepped aside. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 17 15:19:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA16655 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:19:15 -0500 Received: from web121.yahoomail.com (web121.mail.yahoo.com [205.180.60.129]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA16652 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:19:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 21554 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Nov 2000 20:19:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20001117201940.21553.qmail@web121.yahoomail.com> Received: from [216.165.3.61] by web121.yahoomail.com; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:19:40 PST Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:19:40 -0800 (PST) From: "Tuyet A. Ngoc Tran" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Wired News "DVD Piracy Judge Tells All" 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 http://www.wirednews.com/news/politics/0,1283,40226,00.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! http://calendar.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 17 15:40:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA17135 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:40:52 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA17132 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:40:50 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:30:08 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:53:56 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:53:56 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Kaplan discusses his own incompetency Message-ID: <20001117205356.A3840@lemuria.org> References: <3A1594EE.8B5B3A22@uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A1594EE.8B5B3A22@uic.edu>; from jms@uic.edu on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 02:28:30PM -0600 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Schulien wrote: > If Kaplan felt that he was unqualified to handle this case, or even > worse, felt that he personally lacked objectivity, then he had no > business trying it. He should have stepped aside. yeah, but it's not in the evidence, so we can't use it, right? :-/ -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 17 16:02:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA17461 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:02:54 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [209.98.6.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA17458 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:02:51 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [163.228.19.198]) by tneu.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC114618 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:59:02 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:59:02 -0600 (CST) From: tim To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Kaplan discusses DMCA In-Reply-To: <200011171828.NAA29796@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 Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Robert S. Thau wrote: > Wendy Seltzer writes: > > > Kaplan on the DMCA and Universal v. Reimerdes: > > > > One odd bit: Kaplan is reported as saying that: > > Judges are not best suited to deal with cases like theese. Judges are > best suited to deal with matters between private parties.... Judges do > not have any special training to rule on decisions such as these and > lack the objective perspective to make those best decisions. > > This appears (on page 2) in quotes, so it seems that these are his own > words. > > Am I missing something here? I thought it was a judge's job to be > impartial. I don't suppose this quote does anything to help us on the appeal. He may have thrown us a carrot without knowing it, assuming there was some way we could use it. Is there any way to bring up recusal again? I mean, if Kaplan stepped forward tomorrow and confessed that the whole thing was fixed, what would we do? Since we already appealed the recusal, it wouldn't matter? I'm just trying to understand... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- What the president of the Motion Picture Association of America says about taking away your constitutional rights: "I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out reverse engineering; he threw out linking." - Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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, 17 Nov 2000 17:11:25 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:11:52 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Kaplan discusses DMCA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:11:49 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/17/2000 02:11:52 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "lawless miscreants".... I havent' been called that in years. Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Kaplan discusses DMCA arvard.edu 11/17/00 11:06 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 01:11:26PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Kaplan on the DMCA and Universal v. Reimerdes: > > (Will Wired News incur the MPAA's wrath for linking to DeCSS?) > > Also as noted there, appellant's brief is scheduled for December 20, which > would indicate that their amici file by Dec. 27. Given the holiday season, > the parties may seek a continuance to extend those dates. This is even more bizarre than his decision! He knew that the law would at a minimum need revision, but ignored any significant exploration of the constitutional basis for this law, nor did he every seriously examine his flawed reading of the law. I guess defendant shopping pays a much heftier dividend than I though possible. I'll venture a guess --- that Kaplan thinks the needed revision is to remove the words "no prior restraint" from 1203(c). So, is there a transcript from the American Univ. symposium? Strangle that golden goose my friend! If the eggs taste good, the flesh will be better. Too bad that engineers and scientists are the geese. Honk, honk. Paul Fenimore P.S. Just so no one is under the false impression that Wired has a clue in this matter, take a look at the title of the HTML doc: "DVD Piracy Judge Tells All" From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Nov 17 17:22:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA18845 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:22:24 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA18842 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:22:22 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:22:49 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] SecDef to Honor Valenti -- certainly much more awards tocome!? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:22:47 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 11/17/2000 02:22:49 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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's keep the NRA out of this discussion. I am NOT an NRA member and do not agree with some of their positions but I also know that just as the media has protrayed the DeCSS as "DVD piracy" being done by screaming hoards of hackers intent upon pillaging cyberspace and the studios intellectual properties, so too the media loves to portray the NRA as an organization that "encourage and promote violence and excessive gun use as positive portrayal through film and television" . That is in fact NOT their position at all. Let's leave this OUT of this discussion group. BTW- Charlton Heston probably will be serving food at the LA Mission next thursday, as he has for several decades. That's more than I will be doing since I only donate money to it. "Juergen + Barbara" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] SecDef to Honor arvard.edu Valenti -- certainly much more awards to come!? 11/17/00 11:08 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss and soon we will see: "...to honor Charlton Heston, president of the NRA, for his efforts to encourage and promote violence and excessive gun use as positive portrayal through film and television." "...to honor Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA, for his efforts to encourage positive marketing of rated and violent movies to minors through film and television." ;-) *jm* -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of John Young Sent: Donnerstag, 16. November 2000 12:15 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] SecDef to Honor Valenti November 16, 2000 SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO HONOR JACK VALENTI WITH CITIZEN PATRIOT AWARD (...) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 18 09:18:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA29665 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:18:11 -0500 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 JAA29662 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:18:09 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld7eo.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.157.216]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA01791 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:18:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A168EEB.30C3AECA@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:15:08 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: [dvd-discuss] First movie distributed via satellite Content-Type: text/plain; charset=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.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/11/17/digital.theater.ap/index.html > In preparation for satellite transmission, the movie was transferred to a > compressed digital file and encrypted. It took 8 hours to transmit the file from > Tulsa, Oklahoma, to a satellite dish atop the AMC Empire 25 Theatre. > In the theater, the file was decoded, expanded and stored on several computer > hard disks. From there, it can be projected. > and: > The equipment costs between $150,000 and $200,000 per > screen as compared with about $35,000 for a conventional projector. > So, in the process, they demonstrated how impractical it is for consumers to copy their movies. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 18 12:06:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA32640 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 12:06:59 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA32637 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 12:06:58 -0500 Received: from ip45.bedford9.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.79.45]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 13xBSe-0001cL-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 12:07:32 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First movie distributed via satellite Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 12:13:44 -0500 Message-ID: References: <3A168EEB.30C3AECA@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3A168EEB.30C3AECA@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 MAA32638 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:15:08 -0500, mickeym wrote: > >> The equipment costs between $150,000 and $200,000 per >> screen as compared with about $35,000 for a conventional projector. >> > >So, in the process, they demonstrated how impractical it is for >consumers to copy their movies. Except they're not talking DVD there. It's probably 1280 X 1024 HDP format video compressed only 5:1. I think the satellites transmit just under 4MB/sec. Eventually DVD will be viewed as just another consumer format, much like VHS. It certainly isn't their "digital master." All this todo will be forgotten when people just buy and rent DVDs as they do VHS. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 18 14:44:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02125 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:44:25 -0500 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 OAA02122 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:44:23 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld6d2.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.153.162]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA15899 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:44:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A16DB7E.83B55CC9@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:41:51 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] First movie distributed via satellite Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:15:08 -0500, mickeym wrote: > > > > >> The equipment costs between $150,000 and $200,000 per > >> screen as compared with about $35,000 for a conventional projector. > >> > > > >So, in the process, they demonstrated how impractical it is for > >consumers to copy their movies. > > Except they're not talking DVD there. It's probably 1280 X 1024 HDP > format video compressed only 5:1. I think the satellites transmit just > under 4MB/sec. > > Eventually DVD will be viewed as just another consumer format, much > like VHS. It certainly isn't their "digital master." All this todo > will be forgotten when people just buy and rent DVDs as they do VHS. > Which was sort of what I meant, I guess. As a competitive business, they should focus on ways to provide more value in their theater production, making consumer level stuff relatively low-grade in comparison to real theater using real digital masters. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Nov 21 23:30:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA12766 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 23:30:17 -0500 Received: from spdmraac.compuserve.com (ds-img-rel-3.compuserve.com [149.174.206.154]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA12763 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 23:30:15 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmraac.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id XAA10127 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 23:27:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mic667 (sfr-tgn-sfa-vty53.as.wcom.net [216.192.3.53]) by spdmraac.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id XAA10111; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 23:27:43 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: "Dvd-Discuss@Eon. Law. Harvard. Edu" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Yahoo vs. French Court Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 20:28:31 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01C053F9.9D15FD40" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C053F9.9D15FD40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Story in San Jose Mercury News, "Yahoo's blocking of Nazi memorability is upheld", http://www0.mercurycenter.com/business/top/055082.htm. Interesting news -- even though difficult to enforce, at least, for Yahoo. Yeah, and USA news already pounding on "Free Speech", etc. ;-) Compared to the DeCSS lawsuit, which, of course is not applicable outside USA territory, in Europe *they* feel, USA is restricting free speech. In fact, you will find various web sites explaining -- and making available necessary tools -- how ripping of DVDs work. Of course, stressing, like, "though shall not make illegal copies!". (As you do when explaining how to replicate, say, Audio CDs, etc.) In Germany a northern Oberlandesgericht (State Supreme Court) ruled that one can be held responsible for contents of web links. Unless providing a disclaimer / warning to each of the links on the web spage, specifically and explicitely stating that you will not accept responsibility of the contents of the web pages the links refer to. With search engines you would be cool, anyway. But in regards to a link to a web site one intentionally designed and included in the layout of the HTML page, I can see a certain potential liability here. And then we have China, where they are to cope with the internet and how it circumvents their censorship (ideals).... Very interesting! Grusz aus dem sonnigen Silikontal, jm & bbm. ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C053F9.9D15FD40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Story = in San Jose=20 Mercury News, "Yahoo's blocking of Nazi memorability is = upheld", http://www= 0.mercurycenter.com/business/top/055082.htm.
 
 
 
Interesting news --=20 even though difficult to enforce, at least, for = Yahoo.
Yeah, = and USA news=20 already pounding on "Free Speech", etc.  ;-)
 
Compared to the=20 DeCSS lawsuit, which, of course  is not applicable outside USA = territory,=20 in Europe *they* feel, USA is restricting free speech.  In fact, = you will=20 find various web sites explaining -- and making available necessary = tools -- how=20 ripping of DVDs work.  Of course, stressing, like, "though shall = not make=20 illegal copies!".  (As you do when explaining how to replicate, = say, Audio=20 CDs, etc.)
 
In = Germany a=20 northern Oberlandesgericht (State Supreme Court) ruled that one can be = held=20 responsible for contents of web links.  Unless providing a = disclaimer /=20 warning to each of the links on the web spage, specifically and = explicitely=20 stating that you will not accept responsibility of the contents of = the web=20 pages the links refer to.
 
With = search engines=20 you would be cool, anyway.  But in regards to a link to a web site = one=20 intentionally designed and included in the layout of the HTML page, I = can see a=20 certain potential liability here.
 
 
And = then we have=20 China, where they are to cope with the internet and how it circumvents = their=20 censorship (ideals)....
 
Very=20 interesting!  
 
Grusz aus dem = sonnigen Silikontal,
       jm &=20 bbm.
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C053F9.9D15FD40-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 22 02:31:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA16302 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:31:41 -0500 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 CAA16299 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:31:39 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 13yUOE-00036X-00; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:32:22 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 13yUOH-0000Sx-00; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:32:25 +0100 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:32:25 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Yahoo vs. French Court Message-ID: <20001122083224.B18111@inka.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from jmhoraze@compuserve.com on Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 08:28:31PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 08:28:31PM -0800, Juergen + Barbara wrote: > In fact, you will find various web sites explaining -- and making > available necessary tools -- how ripping of DVDs work. Of course, > stressing, like, "though shall not make illegal copies!". (As you do > when explaining how to replicate, say, Audio CDs, etc.) It's not just websites either. Here in Germany, I've seen several glossy magazines providing instructions on how to rip and copy DVDs. one of them has an enormous headline reading "How to copy a DVD in 90 Minutes". Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ Ignorance killed the cat, curiosity was framed. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 22 11:35:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA24738 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 11:35:52 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA24728 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 11:35:50 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:36:20 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Yahoo vs. French Court To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:36:18 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 11/22/2000 08:36:20 AM 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 LAA24735 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Don't you just love it when two sovereigns go at each other! The Sovereign State of California in the Sovereign nation of the USA is not likely to agree or enforce restrictions placed upon it by the Sovereign Nation of France. Also, it always amazes me when I consider how many laws people have whose intent is to make the world a nicer place rather than a better one. "Juergen + Barbara" To: "Dvd-Discuss@Eon. Law. Harvard. Edu" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Yahoo vs. French Court 11/21/00 08:33 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Story in San Jose Mercury News, "Yahoo's blocking of Nazi memorability is upheld", http://www0.mercurycenter.com/business/top/055082.htm. Interesting news -- even though difficult to enforce, at least, for Yahoo. Yeah, and USA news already pounding on "Free Speech", etc.  ;-) Compared to the DeCSS lawsuit, which, of course  is not applicable outside USA territory, in Europe *they* feel, USA is restricting free speech.  In fact, you will find various web sites explaining -- and making available necessary tools -- how ripping of DVDs work.  Of course, stressing, like, "though shall not make illegal copies!".  (As you do when explaining how to replicate, say, Audio CDs, etc.) In Germany a northern Oberlandesgericht (State Supreme Court) ruled that one can be held responsible for contents of web links.  Unless providing a disclaimer / warning to each of the links on the web spage, specifically and explicitely stating that you will not accept responsibility of the contents of the web pages the links refer to. With search engines you would be cool, anyway.  But in regards to a link to a web site one intentionally designed and included in the layout of the HTML page, I can see a certain potential liability here. And then we have China, where they are to cope with the internet and how it circumvents their censorship (ideals).... Very interesting! Grusz aus dem sonnigen Silikontal,        jm & bbm. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 23 17:31:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA24313 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:31:05 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA24310 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:31:03 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:19:12 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:10:04 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:10:04 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: decss@lists.lemuria.org, dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] [shane_k@bellsouth.net: Notice to my fans] Message-ID: <20001123221004.A12399@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu ----- Forwarded message from "Shane D. Killian" ----- > Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:01:28 -0500 > To: undisclosed-recipients:; > From: "Shane D. Killian" > X-Accept-Language: en > Subject: Notice to my fans > > Hi! I'm sending this notice out to everyone who's expressed interest in or sent > me fan mail about my mp3.com site. > > You may have noticed that my artist page has been unavailable lately. This is > due to my worst fears being realized: the MPAA has made everyone so paranoid > about anything having to do with the DeCSS source code they're willing to > repress anyone who tries to exercise their free speech rights about it. > > So mp3.com has taken down my hoedown, and since that's my only material to date > on the site it has resulted in my artist page being suspended. They don't want > to take the risk of being the target of another Federal lawsuit the way > 2600.com was, which given their current legal problems is quite understandable. > > I just want it to be known that, while I am of course disappointed in this turn > of events, I nevertheless have accepted mp3.com's decision in this matter. They > have been very understanding about the whole deal and say the song is welcome > back the moment this idiotic ruling is overturned, as I am confident it will > be. But it's such a shame that, in a free country, this happens at all. Our > Founding Fathers fought and died to make sure we didn't have to face this kind > of situation, and all it takes is one rich, powerful coalition with a team of > high-priced lawyers and a biased Federal judge to take it all away from us. I > guess when the man said "eternal vigilance," he was right! > > So my venom will continue to be directed where it's due: the MPAA. I am > presently working on my next piece, a piece critical of the movie ratings > system made to sound like the audio from one of those educational films they > made us watch in school. And that is where it should all be directed--the MPAA, > not mp3.com. As much as I may hate this system that restricts my First > Amendment rights, let's not forget that mp3.com has First Amendment rights, > too, and they have a perfect right to not post any material they feel would > open them up to more trouble. > > In other words, just because I'm on a crusade of civil disobedience, it doesn't > mean I can force others to go with me. > > So look for the title "MPAA Ratings and You," the second track on my > album-in-progress, "MPAA Public Enemy #1," on mp3.com hopefully sometime in the > next week or two and if you'd like a copy of the hoedown (that's actually > higher quality than what mp3.com will accept anyway) I've submitted it to the > DeArt contest, in the October submissions, at http://www.lemuria.org/DeArt/Oct/ > -- so tell your fiends they can find it there! > > I haven't decided what this will mean for the CD yet. Maybe by the time I get > all the tracks down (sometime after my studio gets finished in January) this > matter will all be resolved and I can release it all--Hoedown included--as a > D.A.M. CD. We'll see. > > Thanks for listening! ----- End forwarded message ----- -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 25 13:28:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21221 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 13:28:13 -0500 Received: from brutus.conectiva.com.br (brutus.conectiva.com.br [200.250.58.146]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21218 for ; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 13:28:08 -0500 Received: from localhost (riel@localhost) by brutus.conectiva.com.br (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eAPISis10126; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 16:28:45 -0200 X-Authentication-Warning: duckman.distro.conectiva: riel owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 16:28:44 -0200 (BRDT) From: Rik van Riel X-Sender: riel@duckman.distro.conectiva To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: decss@lists.lemuria.org, "Shane D. Killian" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] [shane_k@bellsouth.net: Notice to my fans] In-Reply-To: <20001123221004.A12399@lemuria.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, 23 Nov 2000, Shane D. Killian wrote: > > Hi! I'm sending this notice out to everyone who's expressed interest in or sent > > me fan mail about my mp3.com site. > > > > You may have noticed that my artist page has been unavailable lately. This is > > due to my worst fears being realized: the MPAA has made everyone so paranoid > > about anything having to do with the DeCSS source code they're willing to > > repress anyone who tries to exercise their free speech rights about it. > > > > So mp3.com has taken down my hoedown, and since that's my only material to date > > on the site it has resulted in my artist page being suspended. They don't want > > to take the risk of being the target of another Federal lawsuit the way > > 2600.com was, which given their current legal problems is quite understandable. I could give you a subdomain under opendvd.org and host the material you want... regards, Rik -- Hollywood goes for world dumbination, Trailer at 11. http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Nov 25 14:18:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA21759 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:18:50 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA21755 for ; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:18:43 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 11:19:31 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] [shane_k@bellsouth.net: Notice to my fans] To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 11:19:29 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 11/25/2000 11:19:31 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hollywood goes for world dumbination, Trailer at 11. With the 2600 case I'd say Jack Valenti and the MPAA are attempting dumbnation of their opponents. "dumb and dumber".....Hollywood is beginning to wook worse than "Network" was in the 70s (I can barely watch that movie anymore without almost tears in my eyes....it's gone from hilarious satire to a documentory of everyday TV) 102 Dalmations...The Grinch...I'll stick to the cartoons. Rik van Riel To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: decss@lists.lemuria.org, "Shane D. Killian" owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] [shane_k@bellsouth.net: Notice to my fans] 11/25/00 10:31 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Shane D. Killian wrote: > > Hi! I'm sending this notice out to everyone who's expressed interest in or sent > > me fan mail about my mp3.com site. > > > > You may have noticed that my artist page has been unavailable lately. This is > > due to my worst fears being realized: the MPAA has made everyone so paranoid > > about anything having to do with the DeCSS source code they're willing to > > repress anyone who tries to exercise their free speech rights about it. > > > > So mp3.com has taken down my hoedown, and since that's my only material to date > > on the site it has resulted in my artist page being suspended. They don't want > > to take the risk of being the target of another Federal lawsuit the way > > 2600.com was, which given their current legal problems is quite understandable. I could give you a subdomain under opendvd.org and host the material you want... regards, Rik -- Hollywood goes for world dumbination, Trailer at 11. http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Nov 27 15:03:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA14083 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:03:14 -0500 Received: from corb.mc.mpls.visi.com (corb.mc.mpls.visi.com [208.42.156.1]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA14080 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:03:13 -0500 Received: from isis.visi.com (isis.visi.com [209.98.98.8]) by corb.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E545A817E for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:03:42 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (tneu@localhost) by isis.visi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA22309 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:04:11 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: isis.visi.com: tneu owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:04:11 -0600 (CST) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Message from the EFF on Slashdot Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Saw this on slashdot: --- EFF Makes Call For DMCA Help Posted by Hemos on Monday November 27, @10:15AM from the doing-good-can-be-fun dept. I received a request for help from the EFF, who've made a call for examples of how the anticircumvention provision of the DMCA impacts the world of the ordinary fair user. I've included the full text from them below -- please add your comments with examples. The Electronic Frontier Foundation We are looking for diverse, real world examples of the ways in which the lives of ordinary fair users are strangled by the anticircumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). According to Judge Kaplan's ruling in the New York DVD Case (where 2600 publisher Eric Corley was ordered to take down DeCSS and any links to DeCSS), the DMCA makes circumventing access controls wrong, regardless of the reason you are circumventing. If your circumvention intentions are grounded in fair use, good for you. Fair use continues to be constitutionally protected by the First Amendment, but making and providing circumvention tools and even circumventing to do legal fair use is no longer allowed, thanks to Section 1201 of the DMCA. Applying this rule to videos would mean that although recording David Letterman is constitutionally protected, the use of VCRs and Circuit City's "trafficking" in them are illegal. We at the EFF feel that following this path will essentially destroy fair use. We foresee countless scenarios where librarians can't create a copy of encrypted material to archive, even if the archiving itself is a lawful use; professors can't use excerpts of encrypted material in classrooms even though the excerpts are a form of protected expression; scholars can't write their own computer programs to analyze the full digitized versions of copyrighted works in all media; and music aficionados can't customize digital searches for thematic research. But what else? Surely there have got to be more examples, and we need to collect a short but powerful list of them. Tell us your most Draconian visions for a world where circumvention is always criminal even to get to the fair use that's not. Who would lose? And how? Points will be given for brevity, concreteness and the ability to have your grandmother easily grasp the problem. Demerits applied for overuse of technical jargon, long-winded diatribes and multiple, repetitive messages. The winning scenarios may be discussed in our legal briefs, and, if they're very good, maybe even relied upon in a landmark legal decision throwing the statute out as unconstitutional. Let's "open source" this problem. Thanks, EFF =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- What the president of the Motion Picture Association of America says about taking away your constitutional rights: "I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out reverse engineering; he threw out linking." - Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "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, 27 Nov 2000 15:21:26 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.9.3 (PHNE_21697)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00851 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:22:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001127151209.01a04c40@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:21:52 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Message from the EFF on Slashdot 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 02:04 PM 11/27/00 -0600, Tim Neu wrote: >Saw this on slashdot: >--- > >EFF Makes Call For DMCA Help > > Posted by Hemos on Monday November 27, @10:15AM > from the doing-good-can-be-fun dept. > I received a request for help from the EFF, who've made a call >for examples of how the anticircumvention > provision of the DMCA impacts the world of the ordinary fair >user. I've included the full text from them > below -- please add your comments with examples. While new evidence would be inadmissible on appeal, background facts and not-so-hypothetical scenarios illustrating the DMCA's overreaching will still be useful in the briefs. We still need to show (to judges and the public at-large) that this case isn't just about the DVD pirates and "hackers," but also the harms to schoolchildren, library patrons, the media, and "ordinary" people. They may also be looking for would-be-fair-users to bring an affirmative challenge to the statute. No update yet on a continuance of the briefing schedule, but we should know more after a conference Wednesday. --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 Mon Nov 27 15:53:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA16844 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:53:50 -0500 Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA16841 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:53:43 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa219.pool008.at001.earthlink.net [216.249.79.219]) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12598 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:54:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001127125154.05341a00@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:54:23 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Message from the EFF on Slashdot 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 If you have a good contribution to make, please do *not* just post it on slashdot. E-mail it to Lauren Gelman, gelman@eff.org. At 02:04 PM 11/27/2000 -0600, Tim Neu wrote: >Saw this on slashdot: >--- > >EFF Makes Call For DMCA Help > > Posted by Hemos on Monday November 27, @10:15AM > from the doing-good-can-be-fun dept. > I received a request for help from the EFF, who've made a call >for examples of how the anticircumvention > provision of the DMCA impacts the world of the ordinary fair >user. I've included the full text from them > below -- please add your comments with examples. > > The Electronic Frontier Foundation > > We are looking for diverse, real world examples of the ways in >which the lives of ordinary fair users are strangled by the > anticircumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright >Act (DMCA). > > According to Judge Kaplan's ruling in the New York DVD Case >(where 2600 publisher Eric Corley was ordered to take > down DeCSS and any links to DeCSS), the DMCA makes circumventing >access controls wrong, regardless of the reason > you are circumventing. If your circumvention intentions are >grounded in fair use, good for you. Fair use continues to be > constitutionally protected by the First Amendment, but making >and providing circumvention tools and even > circumventing to do legal fair use is no longer allowed, thanks >to Section 1201 of the DMCA. > > Applying this rule to videos would mean that although recording >David Letterman is constitutionally protected, the use of > VCRs and Circuit City's "trafficking" in them are illegal. > > We at the EFF feel that following this path will essentially >destroy fair use. We foresee countless scenarios where > librarians can't create a copy of encrypted material to archive, >even if the archiving itself is a lawful use; professors can't > use excerpts of encrypted material in classrooms even though the >excerpts are a form of protected expression; scholars > can't write their own computer programs to analyze the full >digitized versions of copyrighted works in all media; and > music aficionados can't customize digital searches for thematic >research. But what else? > > Surely there have got to be more examples, and we need to >collect a short but powerful list of them. Tell us your most > Draconian visions for a world where circumvention is always >criminal even to get to the fair use that's not. Who would > lose? And how? > > Points will be given for brevity, concreteness and the ability >to have your grandmother easily grasp the problem. Demerits > applied for overuse of technical jargon, long-winded diatribes >and multiple, repetitive messages. The winning scenarios > may be discussed in our legal briefs, and, if they're very good, >maybe even relied upon in a landmark legal decision > throwing the statute out as unconstitutional. > > Let's "open source" this problem. > > Thanks, > EFF > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >What the president of the Motion Picture Association of America says about >taking away your constitutional rights: > >"I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of >these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out >reverse engineering; he threw out linking." > >- Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >______ _ __ "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, 29 Nov 2000 14:10:48 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id OAA10542 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:11:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id OAA15853; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:11:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:11:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011291911.OAA15853@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu ... this one on, very roughly, the streambox issue; more generally, on royalty payments and regulations on intermediate copies produced as part of the playback process: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2659001,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01 rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 29 16:07:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA06124 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:07:52 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA06121 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:07:50 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:08:50 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:08:48 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 11/29/2000 01:08:50 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Copyright holders, however, feel royalties should be paid on copies that may be produced incidentally on the computer's buffer as a result of the streaming." Now that's a novel way to increase one's revenues. Do you realize that this whole problem comes down to language? The legal profession has not realized that the word COPY has different connotations. In copyright, it connotes a fixation into media of the material that is accessible to the purchaser of it. In this case, the buffer copies that are not accessed are more like unsold copies left in a warehouse. (Which don't have to be "cut out"....not that they've figured out that in digital distribution, they don't ever need to "cut out" CDs to clean out their warehouse..."cutting out" a work is more like taking it off their server. "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related arvard.edu hearing... 11/29/00 11:35 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss ... this one on, very roughly, the streambox issue; more generally, on royalty payments and regulations on intermediate copies produced as part of the playback process: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2659001,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01 rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 29 17:08:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA07485 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:08:42 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07481 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:08:31 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03302 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:10:21 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:10:16 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] More copyright office hearings on DMCA Message-ID: <20001129171016.A3167@eldritchpress.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,40378,00.html Brad King in wired.com has another depressing story on more hearings by the U.S. Copyright Office on the DMCA. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Nov 29 17:17:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA07738 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:17:39 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07735 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:17:37 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:18:37 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] More copyright office hearings on DMCA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:18:36 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 11/29/2000 02:18:37 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu When music is streamed, webcasters are required to pay a performance royalty. In order to generate smooth playback of incoming streams, computers temporarily store some of the data in memory in a RAM buffer. Music publishers have stated that the data in this buffer should be considered a physical creation that would require webcasters to pay a mechanical royalty, similar to what they pay for downloads or CDs. A physical creation? These people seem to be of the mind that "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there does it make a sound" ...absolutely YES......Incredible....stupid greedy bastards. Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] More copyright office arvard.edu hearings on DMCA 11/29/00 02:11 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,40378,00.html Brad King in wired.com has another depressing story on more hearings by the U.S. Copyright Office on the DMCA. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Nov 30 04:11:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA06211 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:11:11 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA06208 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:11:04 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:00:26 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:55:22 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:55:22 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] More copyright office hearings on DMCA Message-ID: <20001130095522.A18288@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 02:18:36PM -0800 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > A physical creation? These people seem to be of the mind that "if a tree > falls in the forest and nobody is there does it make a sound" ...absolutely > YES......Incredible....stupid greedy bastards. not quite. they believe that the tree should pay them royalities. someone on cypherpunks would say these people "need killing", and the more you know about them, the less other descriptions seem adequate. they're not only greedy, they're worse. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore)