DVD CCA Applies for Restraining Order 895
Robert Jones writes "I have just received an email which I think will be of interest to many Slashdotters. Apparently, the DVD CCA [Copyright Control Association] has applied for a restraining order against myself and approximately 70 others to keep us from distributing 'any proprietary property or trade secrets relating to the CSS technology'. The hearing will be at 'the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, State of California, on December 29, 1999, at 8:30 a.m.' This will probably result in the bastards silencing us, but what can you do? If this goes through, I will never purchase a DVD player using current technology." Yes, the e-mail is real. Many people sent copies. We'll post an in-depth story within a day or two.
Trade secrets vs. patents (Score:4)
Is something still a trade secret if it has been reverse engineered? I thought this was the trade off between patenting and keeping something a trade secret. Surely they can't have it both ways?
Two words: (Score:2)
Make the code ubiquitous, and it simply won't matter any more.
--
blue
slashdot also in the email (Score:5)
Whack the mole! (Score:3)
Anybody ever play "whack the mole"? Watching these lawyers try to stop the flood of information is like playing the game - every time you smack one down with your mallet two more pop up.
If anyone wants the source, contact me [mailto]. Oh yes, and I'm making a dare to any of the lawyers out there - whack this mole.
Deep Pockets Don't Care... (Score:2)
For someting to be a trade secret, you need to take steps to keep it a secret. If the technology is reverse engineered without reference to protected material, I don't think that they have a case.
I guess they realized that they would be really up a creek if they tried copyright law on this one.
These are 'secrets' (Score:3)
Sorry DSS guys, it was too late when you released the format.
pining for the old days? (Score:3)
those were the good old days. if a company tried something like this, their buildings would be burned and the owner tarred and feathered in front of his house. sure it's dangerous, but how dangerous is it to let someone step on your freedom? is it really better to die on your feet than live on your knees?
are these companies paying me to allow their software and data run though MY computer and MY cables in MY house? do I have the right to put a logic analyzer or debugger on my system and look at the registers, memory and I/O or the various hardware and programs? can i use than information in turn for whatever purpose i choose? when will this become a "fair use" issue? reselling someone's app as your own is one issue, but using their protocols and command set should be quite another.
sometimes i think that the only reason corporations get away with this stuff is that we've become so acclimated to greed and selfishness that we have forgotten how to stand together and fight when we see it.
c'mon everyone, join me in a rousing chorus of "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
they will lose in the long run. make it sexy, make it warez.
A sad note to end the millenium (Score:4)
With only a couple of days to go, I think that this, more than anything else, personifies and highlights the fight we have ahead of us. Nothing is such a danger to the values that ANYONE who loves the Internet and the Information age holds highly then this fight of stupidity (armed with guns) against the progress of the mind.
I'm pretty much at a lack for words right now, so I will just send my moral support to anyone targeted by this outrage. However, this is a battle we can fight on our turf and they can fight on their's. The courtroom is definitely theirs.
There was never a revolution without somebody going under wheel, and there was never a meme to go under without a fight. And there has never been a fighter like corporate society.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Solution (Score:3)
Remember, one ant won't make a bit of difference, nor will two or three, but millions can overcome any obstacle.
Another issue I am reminded of here is that this is a great experiment by the powers that be. It has long been held that you cannot regulate the internet because it is so distributed and decentralized. If they win, it will be proven that it is easier to control the content of the internet than was previously thought...
Good Luck!
-Chuck
--
Info (Score:5)
Douglas R. Winslow
Yet another boycott? (Score:2)
Is everyone evil?
--Alain
WTF! They're threatening slashdot too? (Score:2)
Oh, and get item 32. They're saying that because of DeCSS, the whole DVD industry is going to dry up. What a horrible joke.
DeCSS, LiViD, css-auth, link! (Score:4)
Let them try to call a few hundred thousand people into court... I'd like to see that. =)
The Hearing is Coming Up, not Passed (Score:4)
If I read on Dec. 29th that the hearing came and went without a standing-room-only courtroom, with all sides of the issue having been clearly heard, I will stop caring about the intellectual property debate.
It's not as if the article was "they applied for AND RECEIVED a restraining order." There is still an opportunity to influence the court. If nothing else, a judge could be made to realize that this matter is not something that should be decided off the cuff, but rather has very significant implications. Simply having a few thousand people on the courthouse steps that day would probably be enough to effect change.
Do I think it will happen? No. Will I be there? No. When the rubber meets the road on these issues, the bottom line is we really don't care. We Email our congress people, but do we snail mail them? Are these issues even worth $.33 to us? Maybe not. History will tell.
Section 47. (Score:3)
software created by CSS licensee Xing Technology Corporation ("Xing"). Xing's software is and was licensed to users under a license agreement which
specifically prohibits reverse engineering.
Re:Trade secrets vs. patents (Score:4)
Today, the situation is similair, though less physical blood is shed. A court system that inflicts almost no penalty on those who file baseless lawsuits encourages such filings, and the victim often has no resources to challenge it.
The recent 'extension' to the 'limited copyright' granted in the Constitution is a prime example of this.
I tend to be in favor of IP rights as social convention -- they should be honored because it is the right thing to do. The last few years have seen so many attacks on basic rights in the name of protecting IP that I can no longer in good conscience claim that the current system is workable.
It doesnt have to do with pirating (Score:2)
They're not evil, they're just idiots (Score:2)
Trying to get something off the Internet is like trying to get pee out of a swimming pool. Once it's in there, it's in there. The fact that they're trying to proves that they're not evil like I've come to believe, but merely idiots. They think any form of copy is illegal, the only purpose of decrypting a DVD is piracy, and that we apparantly shouldn't be allowed to watch DVD's in the operating system of our choice. (An obvious infringment of fair use)
Will someone ever come along with the money/time to take on these morons? Or will be doomed to be bullied by them? I'm really getting sick of hearing how they're taking away my rights.
Re:You guys are missing the point (Score:2)
Better ban the photocopier then... those damn copies of books are overflowing my bookcases I tell you...
Those damn pirates! They hijacked my ship, pillaged my treasure, and raped the women! Someone must make a restraining order against them!
DVD decryption is out... long out (Score:2)
cvs -d
That's the command to download from the anonymous CVS repository.
Now of course, the code is out, this is just the mechanical yapping of lawyers. What would really make sense is for these industry organizations to come forth and admit that there's no holding DVD back, and open up the doors. They could release open source DVD code and their sales would rise slightly (as opposed to the doom that they predict). How can I know this? Bacause the pirates already have the code so we know pirating will not be increased.
And the DVD organizations would not slack off on prosecuting pirates just because there's an open source reader. Do book companies fail to sell because I could photo-copy the book and sell it? Of course not (books fail to sell because no one reads, but that's a separate issue).
Will they ever learn?
Re:umm... (Score:2)
You have missed the whole point. This has nothing to do with piracy. The whole purpose of the DeCSS code is to give people a way to play the DVDs that they've bought. If you want the technology to prosper, then you should support peoples' right to read and play their DVDs.
---
Fair Use (Score:2)
Re:You guys are missing the point (Score:2)
Re:amazing. (Score:5)
In the real world, there's this new type of media called DVD, and this format in which it is stored, called CSS. CSS is an encryption format; it's not proprietary, really, as they (the creators) have published papers explaining how it works. What they haven't published, however, are the list of keys that can be used with CSS to decrypt DVD movies.
It is a perfectly feasible option to buy a product which will decrypt DVD movies (so they can be played) without having to know any of the keys.
Such products come in two forms: (a) hardware, or actual physical VCR-like devices that connect to a TV, and (b) software, which decodes the DVD format with the aid of a computer.
Although both schemes require a key to operate, the key is embedded - the end user does not need to know what the key is in order to use the product.
This would work well for any standardized environment; from the hardware point of view, as long as you had a standard 60-hz NTSC television, you could use a NTSC DVD decoder; if you had a 50-hz PAL television, like in Europe, you could use a PAL DVD decoder. Here, there are only two major standards that companies need to produce products for.
In the software world, things are much more complicated. Not only are there different standards for how a software product talks to the operating system, but there are different graphical standards, different standards for talking to the DVD drive, etc.
Software companies so far have fulfilled very few niches in terms of all the standards in use. This means that there is still a demand that is unfulfilled, and in the _real world_, demand and supply go together hand-in-hand.
In other words, in the "real world", by not providing enough supply to make everybody happy, you invite competing products.
The only illegal thing done here is to have reverse-engineered a poorly-written software decoder to extract a key. However, it would also have been possible to brute-force test keys until one was found, although it would have taken a while.
So, here (as I see it) are all the things going on here:
In the case of the company with the poorly-written software, negligence.
In the case of the program crackers, reverse engineering. (but is it really illegal to know what the processor knows? I mean, you *own* the damn processor after all!)
Just my $0.02.
--TheOrangeSquid
The fellow sat down at a bar, ordered a drink and asked the bartender if he
wanted to hear a dumb-jock joke.
"Hey, buddy," the bartender replied, "you see those two guys next to
you? They used to be with the Chicago Bears. The two dudes behind you made
the U.S. Olympic wrestling team. And for you information, I used to play
center at Notre Dame."
"Forget it," the customer said. "I don't want to explain it five
times."
Browbeaten into submission with lawyers, not thugs (Score:2)
But my bet is that regardless of whether or not it is, these 70-odd people pissed off many very large companies that have vested interestes and lots of money. So they'll be browbeaten into submission. True, they won't have thugs marching up to their door to beat them up like the unionizers had 100 years ago, but is it really all that different to have 100 lawyers march up to your door and give lawsuits, restraining orders, police raids, and such?
Look at eToy/eToys, www.veronica.org, Scientology, or the DVD consortium 2 months ago.
Since my thoughts are shallow today, would someone else wonder about the historical precident of this. Is this deeply similar to the labor leaders from 100 years ago who risked being beaten up, sometimes even killed, for fighting corporations?
I await replies.
Re:You guys are missing the point (Score:3)
DVD support for *n?x operating systems"
When I mentioned that, I got flamed by people saying that there was in fact DVD support for Linux. What I have yet to see, however, is "enough" DVD support to justify it being a bullet point for what's supported by the OS. At best,
playing a DVD on linux seems to require:
1. Willingness to take a risk in a hardware purchase, for equipment that may not be usable on your OS.
2. Technical savvy enough to run a very experimental system (far beyond the usual requirement for the OS).
3. Willingness to be considered part of a criminal conspiracy by the DVD industry (if this court order goes through and follows to its logical conclusion).
That makes Linux a laughable alternative to Windows9x for the application of playing DVD.
Unless you can give me a cookbook solution (what DVD drive to buy, what software to run it on, works with all titles, totally legal to obtain and use in the USA), don't you dare flame me for saying this. Linux remains an unacceptable solution for the DVD player application.
Re:Two words: (Score:2)
Do these letters usually have a "Prayer for relief" at the end? What's up with that. I don't get it, when did God come in to the legal system.
That is the general form. The use of prayer here is somewhat archaic but correct. Prayer does not have to be to god, in this case, it is to the court. It is simply a request for intercession from a higher authority.
This issue has nothing to do with piracy (Score:5)
The breaking of CSS encryption has absolutely nothing to do with piracy. Think about it for a second: how feasible is it to move around 5- and 6- gigabyte DVDs? How do you store them? Not on your hard drive, that's for sure! How many people do you think can afford a DVD burner capable creating true dual-layer DVDs (and not DVD-RAM discs, which are something completetly different?) And when DVDs can be bought online by a judicious shopper for as little as $5 per title, do you really think anyone's going to go out of his way to pirate them? It's far easier to hook a VCR to the video output of your DVD decoder card and videotape the damned things! The loss of quality is far less than if one were to recompress an MPEG2 stream using a lossier but higher-compression encoding.
No, the issue at hand here is that of free access to information--an issue that has traditionally been very important to the open-source community and very unimportant to the corporations that write your software and, to an increasing degree, control your life.
You see, when the DVD manufacturers came up with CSS, their goal was not to protect the intellectual property contained on DVDs; rather, they were establishing an ironclad grip on the entire DVD market. They control who gets to view DVDs, how, and with what hardware and software. They have accomplished this end through the use of a proprietary encryption scheme (CSS) about which they have released no information. Of course, if they'd bothered to consult with any security professional, they would have been told that security through obscurity simply doesn't work, as has been proven endlessly, usually at the expensive of the implementor of said obscure security.
Now, someone has broken their cute little encryption scheme, which they never patented and never published. In what is basically a panic response, they are wasting millions of dollars and contemplating turning the entire DVD market on its side just so they can maintain total control of the market.
As if this wasn't bad enough, they are threatening legal action against the people who cracked CSS, an activity that never was and still isn't illegal, and they are trying to block them from publishing anything else they find out about the non-patented CSS encryption algorithm. This is a violation of the CSS crackers' right to free speech which, if you'll recall, if a constitutional right.
This is an old story, of course. Those of you who have been around long enough can remember countless other occasions where some company's naive encryption scheme was broken and the corporate response was to attempt a legal assassination of the cracker in order to maintain security.
So, instead of whining irrelevantly about piracy, why don't you boycott DVDs yourself in order to protest the violation of someone's first amendement rights? Somebody might someday do the same thing for you when you find yourself against the wall.
Similarity to emulation arguement? (Score:2)
While I feel this should be legal, if someone could explain just why this should be and lock-picking isn't. its still illegal if you reverse engineer how to make a key that fits, right?
Re:Two words: t-shirts :) (Score:2)
The list of defendants (Are you one of them?) (Score:3)
(apologies for the length of post)
/ index.htm e x.htmlgeocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Cam pus/8877/index.html o m/myband/decss/top.html . htmlfortunecity.com/tinpan/tylerbridge/6 79/dvdcss.html c iphers/decss.tar.gze amciphers/decss.tar.gzp hers/decss.tar.gzi phers/decss.tar.gzp hers/decss.tar.gzp hers/decss.tar.gz. zip m
1. www.free-dvd.org.lu
2.josefine.ben.tuwien.ac.at/~david/dvd
3.rockme.virtualave.net/
4.amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h0444t2v
5.www.homestead.com/_ksi0701961562917005/avoid...
6.www.anglefire.com/jazz/avoiderman/
7.www.intelcities.com/Main_Street/Avoiderman/
8.www.members.theglobe.com/avoiderman/dvd.htm
9.members.zoom.com/_XMCM/lkjhgfdsa2/index.html
10.www.vexed.net/CSS/
11.www.unitycode.org/
12.batman.jytol.fi/~vuori/dvd/
13.www.zpok.demon.co.uk/
14.www.dvdlinks.co.uk/css/
15.www.twistedlogic.com/archive/dvd
16.www.capital.net/~wooly/
17.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Campus/8877/ind
18.www.angelfire.com/mt/popefelix/
19.members.tripod.lycos.nl/jvz/
20.tv.acmecity.com/parody/356/index.html
21.cryptome.org/dvd-free.htm
22.altern.org/bettina/0a0a.html
23.www.crosswinds.net/~valo/DeCSS/
24.info.astercity.net/~nicodem/
25.134.100.185.221/decss/
26.www.dvdripper.videopage.de/
27.Crypto.gq.nu
28.www.humpin.org/decss
29.209.132.25.138/~inkk/DVD/
30.members.brabant.chello.nl/~j.vreeken/main.html
31.dirtass.beyatch.net/
32.therapy.endorphin.org/DVD/
33.www.angelfire.com/in2/mirror/
34.sent.freeserve.co.uk/DeCSS
35.members.tripod.co.uk/bap/css/css.html
36.angelfire.com/myband/decss/top.htmlangelfire.c
37.www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/tylerbridge/679/dvd
38.munitions.vipul.net/software/algorithms/stream
39.munitions.polkaroo.net/software/algorithms/str
40.munitions.dyn.org/software/algorithms/streamci
41.munitions.cifs.org/software/algorithms/streamc
42.uk1.munitions.net/software/algorithms/streamci
43.munitions.firenze.linux.it/algorithms/streamci
44.perso.libertysurf.fr/ortal98/dvd_rip/decss_12b
45.users.drak.net/bemann/software/css/
46.www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Port/3224/
47.ftp://alma.dhs.org/pub/DVD/
48.decss.tripod.com/index.html
49.discordia.de/decss/DeCss.zip
50.www.dvd-copy.com/
51.dvdtidbits.com/dvd.shtml
52.www.neophile.net/
53.perso.club-internet.fr/ches/dl/rippers/
54.plato.nebulanet.net:88/css/
55.quintessenzs.at/q/mirrors.html
56.www.ceraton.com/decss/
57.slashdot.org/articles/99/11/09/1342207.shtml
58.cryptome.org/dvd-css.htm
59.ftp://dvd:dvd@206.98.63.136/
60.www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=547600297
61.www.brakton.freeservers.com/#downloads
62.www.remco.xgov.net/dvd/
63.www.dvdcracked.tvheaven.com/index.html
64.dvdsite.homepage.com/
65.www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Derby/2659
66.get.to/dvdsite
67.home.worldonline.dk/~andersa/download/index.ht
68.www.ooze.org/dvd.html
69.start.at/dvdsoft
70.mmadb.no/hwplus/DeCSS/decss.html
71.home.sol.no/~espen-b/dvd/css/decss.html
72.o2.uio.no/dvd
_________________________
On your mark, get set, go! Start mirroring! (Score:2)
Your one stop shop for CSS information: Their court filing.
Sources for DVD code (Score:2)
But then the USA is the country that grew copyright laws 20 years because nice Disney asked and one that allowed home video taping by a single vote in the supreme court... thats how close it came to being the only place you couldnt do home taping....
Alan
/. is Doe 57 (Score:2)
Doe 57 is listed as whoever is responsible for this
Re:slashdot also in the email (Score:2)
32. Without the motion picture companies? copyrighted content for DVD video, there would be no viable market for computer DVD drives and DVD players, as well as the related computer chips and software necessary to run these devices and, thus, there would be no DVD video industry.
So I guess without CSS we'd just pop DVD's in our existing CD-ROM drives and they'd work huh? I suppose you'd pop a DVD in your laserdisc player or VHS player and it'd work?
The storage capacity of DVD drives ALONE would MORE then make them a sought after product by computer owners, not to mention that you kindof need a DVD player to play DVD's on a TV....
Is it just me or are the IQ's of lawyers a direct inverse proportion to their price tag?
-- iCEBaLM
Re:CSS wasn't cracked to pirate DVDs (Score:2)
So, nothing that can be used for a bad purpose should be done at all for any purpose? There goes nearly everything including fire, the wheel, and spears.
Re:DeCSS, LiViD, css-auth, link! (Score:2)
It would probably be hard to coordinate but if we just keep putting up web sites every time they sue one of us eventually they'll get tired of it or they'll go broke. Sure it will take awhile but it may be fun to watch.
/. Poll Suggestion: Who is Doe #57? (Score:3)
CmdrTaco
Hemos
Andover
John
DVD Consortium sux
Re:The list of defendants (Are you one of them?) (Score:4)
It's not a US federal court case. As far as I know, the state of California does NOT have any extradition treaty with Denmark or Australia, for example.
What do non-US nationals have to fear? Also, what about US residents who have given up their US citizenship and live only as citizens of another US state? (Yes, I've seen a few--it's a good way to get out of Social Security and the IRS.)
Chris
yeah, i got one too (Score:5)
I promptly called my lawyer (actually a close friend) after recieving the email and he said I have nothing to worry about. Firstly, such a notice must be mailed to me, not emailed. And even by post is not legally binding. Secondly, if they do get their little restraining order, it must be delivered to me in person... hehe, I'm in germany right now. Based on what I told him he said (gasp) that they're just trying scare tactics. I forwarded the email to him, he will review it and give me more advice tomorrow morning.
This sure is a fun, isn't it?
-----
Re:The Hearing is Coming Up, not Passed (Score:3)
The "Other" DVD Copy Protection (Score:3)
I got a DVD player for Christmas today. It's the regular console-type thing with composite, digital audio and s-video outputs. I have a somewhat older 27" TV that takes only RF input. So, I hooked the DVD player to my VCR, which takes composite in and emits RF out. Problem solved, I thought... but no. The video goes through a cycle of great->flickery color->crap in color->crap in monochrome->great, repeat. Funny enough, in the troubleshooting section of the manual, under "I can't record DVD video to VHS tape," it pretty much says, "that's right." It seems that they have screwed around with the hsync signal coming out of the box, such that any intermediate device, like a VCR, degrades the video. Short of buying a new TV with s-video or composite inputs, or a timebase corrector (which would probably cost more than a new TV), what can I do? This seems to be a common problem with DVD players. I've got a perfectly legal TV, perfectly legal HiFi VCR, perfectly legal DVD player, and a perfectly legal copy of the Matrix ("DVD killer app"), which I can't use together because of a very stupid, artificial problem. Little help here?
Doesn't Mr. Jones Live on the East Coast? (Score:2)
Fair pre-millennium hearing impossible (Score:3)
It is impossible for the hearing to go ahead with fair consideration and representation on this date, on account of all the defendents being fully occupied getting ready to prevent the collapse of western civilization through the millennium bug. And no geeks ever get up before midday anyway.
Does piracy even matter? (Score:2)
I was reading through the manual to one of loki's games, and in the end, the authors asked for people to boycott copy-protected software. Their argument was that people had a fixed budget to spend on software, and if no one else was doing copy protection, then the users would pay for the software they liked the best. However if stuff was copy protected, the copy protected stuff would get paid for first.
However one key point is from this is even without copy protection, a good chunk of the population still pays for the digital media that they like.
I suspect that most people would willingly cooperate with a company that shows that it respects and trusts its customers far more than a company who forces everyone to conform through heavy handed power trips.
I guess these corporate types haven't read "The evolution of cooperation" by Robert Axelrod which does a good job of proving that (as long as there's a good chance of a future interaction) the best strategy is to respond in the way that they treated you. On the whole people do tend to respond in the way they're treated... so as the megacorporations continue to try and amass power and exploit the population, eventually the people will get fed up and react. (Think seattle and the WTO)
The only remaining question is how long untill we've been stepped on long enough that we finally act?
Re:The list of defendants (Are you one of them?) (Score:3)
http://www.chello.nl/~f.vanwaveren [chello.nl].
Re:Trade secrets vs. patents (Score:4)
The one thing they are trying to prevent (distribution of the DeCSS source code) is going to happen anyway, probably to a wider range of people than it would've orginally.
Another trend in this thread that i find amussing is the whining of some that the DeCSS folks are pirates. Does this mean that the Linux community is supposed to sit on its hands and wait for someone to decide that its time to support Linux with in their DVD products? I'm not a big time Linux Guru but I know that that isn't how Linux got where it is today. Furthermore, the software market is alive and well despite piracy, the Video Cassette market is alive and well, the Compact disk market is alive and well. So much for the rumors that DeCSS is going to kill the DVD market.
A suggestion to the DeCSS authors. While I know it doesn't sit well with the OpenSource philosopy, why not incorporate. Yeah, you'll have to distribute binaries for awhile but hey, at some point declare the source open and let the code go free.
My 2 cents...
Re:The list of defendants (Are you one of them?) (Score:2)
Really. I've seen a couple of people ask if it is okay for people outside the US to post the source on their website. I myself live in an island in the mediterranean -- Cyprus. Can these courts do anything to me?
A simple way to beat the system. (Score:3)
So why don't we patent it? After all, it is possible to get a patent on a procedure, such as windowing, that has been in existance long before you claim to have invented it.
Since we are not suppossed to know how this is done we can claim that there is no legitmate way we could have found this as an example of prior art.
Then, one we have the patent we can sue them!
I love America.
Need to start doing some damage (Score:3)
I'm sure we could make a legal argument to a jury that this big corporation is out to screw over the little guy and that the only way to keep this from happening more and more often would be to award substantial damages (Say, $500 Million or more) for the misuse of the legal system.
Don't bend over! (Score:5)
Taken from The Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science [onlineethics.org]:
Seems to me (and I'm NOT a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV) that the programmers were completely within their rights here. What really jumps out at this letter at me is that NOWHERE do they reference an actual patent number that I could look up. If they did, I'd be able to pick it apart a bit more; I can only assume that they intentionally left this out of the document because they're hoping a judge isn't smart enough to ask for it. I would think that if the patent helps their cause, they'd certainly quote it or reference it. My understanding of their letter is that they have their panties in a knot over illegal copying and distribution. The fact is, none of these defendants has been accused of either copying or distributing DVD movies. To quote the letter again:
Two things about this scare the living hell out of me. First, this business about "the DeCSS program allows users to illegally pirate the copyrighted motion pictures contained on DVD videos": Sure, it makes such things possible. At the same time, one can mix fertilizer, black powder and some other goodies together such that one could blow a building to hell. A camera makes it possible for one to observe you in the shower. A photocopy machine makes it possible for one to distribute damn near any document. But nobody's sueing Miracle Grow. Nobody's sueing Kodak. Nobody's sueing Xerox. See, the fact that Product X enables one to achieve a nasty objective DOES NOT make Company X liable. This has been established time and time again in the court system. And it holds, so long as Product X's primary purpose is NOT to assist in achieving the nasty objective. The software in question IS NOT written to aid in copying DVDs. It's NOT written to aid distributing illegal copys. It's primary objective was to make DVD's playable on Linux. Quite legal, if ya ask me.
Now, the second thing that really worries me here is that they're going after people who were NOT distributing the software. There are sites on that list who just LINK to the software, or a site that distributes it. Hasn't at least one prior ruling already said that this is a legal activity? If it's not, God help Google, and any other search engine out there. Or anyone who links to anyone who links to the software. And so on.
I'm also completely unsure if this program is anywhere near the stuff used by the licensed friends of the DVD CCA. If they're totally different, and don't make use of the same proprietary algorithms, etc, the case has just grown exponentially weaker. Me thinks that if these guys get shot down, someone oughta rewrite the program such that it doesn't use anything from Xing except the key - and whoops, that can be brute forced in a matter of weeks once a non-proprietary algorithm implementation is in place (see distributed.net efforts w/weak encryption cracking).
Anyways, I highly encourage these defendants to pull together and find a decent defense attorney (anyone out there who is one, and reads slashdot...?), and make sure that DVD CCA doesn't force them to bend over and take this...
--
"improper means" -- key to case (Score:3)
I'm definitely not a lawyer, but the above quote from the letter is very likely the key to their case. Even those IP cases are now pretty much wars of attrition, where whoever can afford to keep fighting wins, Trade Secrets aren't protected unless you can show that they were obtained from the original company. If I independently discover a method of, e.g., organizing a database, another company can't force me to stop using it unless they can show that I got the idea from them. (Well, unless they patent it).
--Kevin
Re:The list of defendants (Are you one of them?) (Score:2)
127.0.0.1/dvd
Downloaded (Score:2)
Regards,
Ben [mailto]
Does this apply to MPEG2 and VOB too? (Score:2)
Woops... (Score:2)
No - Linux support (Score:2)
As mentioned by someone else, copying a DVD is not worthwhile at today's storage costs so piracy is hardly an issue (for now).
Regards,
Ben
Re:They still don't get it. (Score:2)
Also, I'm guessing they want to collect a token licensing commission for each encoder/decoder. Thus no Linux decoder, as any commission on $0 is zero...
-------------------------
"If you try to own the web, like all things Internet, it will simply route around you."
X10 Solves Another Problem (Score:3)
-Tim
.sig: Nobody but us
Re:The list of defendants (Are you one of them?) (Score:5)
Can someone explain to me exactly what right an organisation has trying to use a US court to tell non-US citizens what they can or cannot put on a web page which is not hosted within the USA or on a USA controlled domain name ?
Perhaps someone needs to point out to these lawyers that some bits of the world which aren't the USA take a very different attitude to IPR generally (eg many places have many to avoid the lunacy of software patents altogether thus far - even if some bits of Uncle Sam are now exterting pressure on us to change our policies)
I'll let the people in the US comment on the wrong and wrongs of this case under US law. But I hope those people named who are not in the US tell complainents exactly where they can stick their legal action.
Important fact number one:
Several countries named have decided both as a matter of principle and as a matter of law that reverse engineering of certain types similar to this are legal - whatever companies or other countries might wish.
Important fact number two:
Were the complainants to start legal proceedings in those countries they would have absolutely no hope of winning.
Important fact number three:
In the UK and in much of Europe - if someone launches a civil action against another person and they loose that civil action - then they are (almost always) made to pay ALL of the legal costs involved - *including* the costs incurred by the defendent. These costs in IPR cases are likely to be very high.
Important fact number four:
The UK civil courts have a very robust attitude to people trying to use their procedures in an oppresive manner. They have various powers to deal with organisations which cynically abuse legal process and have shown themselves (on occasion) to be willing to use them. These powers include forcing one side or the other to pay sufficient money into court to cover all the likely relevant costs if they loose, or declaring individuals "vexatious litigants" which means they cannot launch any civil actions without the prior permission of the court.
Important fact number five.
Some people in the UK, the EU and several other countries are already rather touchy on the issue of US courts attempting to exert their authority in other people's countries. Some such people are just waiting for an opportunity to show the US courts exactly where their jurisdiction ends. This looks like it might be a promising candidate.
Their angle... (Score:2)
I suspect the situation is more complicated than that, but IANAL, so I'd appreciate if someone would punch some holes in this particular part of the case.
(It occurs to me as I write this that a violation of Xing's license agreement is Xing's business, not DVD CCA's, so they might not have standing. Is that how it works?)
Re:That story has source . . (Score:2)
here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here
here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org](not source, just a readme), here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], and here [slashdot.org], Not to mention the mirror lists here [slashdot.org], and here [slashdot.org]
Now, am I breaking the law by pointing to them? ;)
_________________________
Re:Section 47. (Score:2)
7. On information and belief, this proprietary information was obtained by willfully "hacking" and/or improperly reverse engineering
software created by CSS licensee Xing Technology Corporation ("Xing"). Xing's software is and was licensed to users under a license agreement which
specifically prohibits reverse engineering.
The law does allow them to put such a clause in their lisencing agreement.
The law also allows me to put in a lisencing agreement that the person using my software must do so standing on their head.
Fortunately, such clauses are unenforceable (i.e. not legally binding).
Reverse engineering is legal since it was a consumer product release for general distribution, not a special prototype board released specifically to an individual under an NDA.
They'll scare you as much as they can, and will probably strong arm you in court, but the end result is that they technically have no legal ground to stand on.
Whether or not you can convince some hick county judge who has never used a computer is another story. (and you can bet your arse they will try that)
The legal system is not, and never was based upon justice; it is based upon power.
Re:Trade secrets vs. patents (Score:3)
Provided you reverse engineered it lawfully,
it is no longer a trade secret. You can't
burgle a factory, and there are issues with
hiring trusted employees. But other than
that they have to protect their trade secret.
However, they can have trade secrets, patents,
copyrights and trademarks all at the same time:
Copyrights on the media
Patents on the DVD CSS technology
Trademark on DVD
Trade Secret on stuff I don't know about (yet)
Key Phrases to mention at the hearing (Score:2)
---
so why doesn't /. mirror the source code then? (Score:2)
(Note: this is NOT meant in a negative way. If it wasn't for
Hahahahahwhoooohooohhoooooheeehee (Score:2)
Let's all make like the Navaho code talkers or the Homeric poets and memorize the source code. Come on everyone, grab a hald dozen lines and a sequence number.
Seriously though, what on Earth will these poor lawyers do about all the over-seas defendants?
Download.Com (Score:3)
-Tim
.Sig: Bah, no
Re:A simple way to beat the system. (Score:2)
Because you are NOT the inventor, that's why. Duh.
You can try claiming that you were the inventor, but if you are caught you could be proven guilty of patent fraud.
People considering posting this code on their web site may want to examine this [execpc.com]. It includes the interesting news that by disseminating this bit of code you may have been violating a federal law that carries a maximum 10 year prison sentence and $500,000 fine.
Time to do a brain-dump to an eternity server (Score:2)
MODERATE THIS UP! -- Group planning to meet at 8am (Score:5)
Re:DeCSS, LiViD, css-auth, link! (Score:3)
Perfect! That gives me another idea too: I was thinking of taking up hunting of dangerous carnivores. My problem has been: I can't shoot so well, so if my quarry is running around quickly or attacking me I might not be able to hit them. So, what I need is some people to run around and make a lot of noise until the animals devour enough of them that they become slow and sluggish; Then they're are as good as dead! Any volunteers?
Chris
A nice summary of the Trademark Law (Score:2)
Santa Clara Coordination. (Score:4)
Chris DiBOna
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
VP, SVLUG
C/DVD/Music/ (Score:3)
32. Without the commercial music companies' copyrighted content for music recordings, there would be no viable market for computer CD drives and CD players, as well as the related computer chips and software necessary to run these devices and, thus, there would be no CD music industry.
Gee, if music CDs ever could be copied then the music CD industry would just fall apart. Oh, wait. We're doing that. Companies are even selling consumer CD copiers. Did the music industry fall apart and I didn't notice?
Well, based on what's on MTV right now I guess it did fall apart. :-)
Re:The list of defendants (Are you one of them?) (Score:3)
To do anything to you, the court has to have three kinds of jurisdiction:
- Subject matter jurisdiction:the court has to be able to rule on the matter involved.
- Personal jurisdiction:the court has to be able to make rulings which pertain to you.
- Physical jurisdiction:the court has to be able to make rulings about the place where the activities took place.
My non-lawyerly judgement is that the court in California has no physical jurisdiction in Cyprus, and no personal jurisdiction over you (unless you are a US national, and maybe not even then).To do anything to you, the DVD consortium's lawyers would have to get a court in Cyprus to do their bidding.--
Re:slashdot also in the email (Score:3)
despite the fact that cease and desist letters were sent to their web sites
GET ~drw/css-auth/legal-info/ HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98)
Cease-And-Desist: Please remove the CSS crack from your site.
--
Re:So where can we get the code *tonight* ? (Score:5)
Re:Trade secrets vs. patents (Score:4)
The DeCSS authors don't seem all that interested in open source. All the copies of the Windows version I've been able to find have been without source, and the Windows version checks for Soft-ICE and refuses to run if Soft-ICE is present, so it looks like the DeCSS authors don't want their code to be reverse engineered. Anyone else find that hilarious?
Re:The Hearing is Coming Up, not Passed (Score:4)
They can file a TRO, certainly. But if the defendents actually show up, they must be heard. If even ONE of them insists on not giving up their right to a hearing, they must be heard.
It does not cost a trillion dollars to do this, contrary to popular belief. And you are mistaken about this item of jurisprudence:
"and the judge compares the size of their wallets"
It probably looks that way. I've gone to court and won before, and it didn't drive me to bankruptcy.
The simple fact that there are defendants named on a California suit who are not subject to California law would be enough to have the TRO suspended, if only it were to be mentioned properly according to the rules of civil procedure.
It is my sincere hope that some wise person, hopefully one of the named defendants, is corresponding with the court on this very subject, and will be prepared on Friday's court date.
Forgery or not? (Score:3)
A few legal facts. (Score:5)
There is no obligation on plaintiffs to be "non-discriminatory" in who they sue. It suffices that they sue wrongdoers. If there are more who are left out who owed duties to the sued defendants, they can implead them (defendants turn around and force others in to the case). But if you are part of a gang that beats up Bob, and Bob sues just you, it's no defense to your liability to say that you were part of a gang.
Of course, suing people who are not guilty is a big no-no: "If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party." Cal. Civ.Code 3426.4.
I'm not a California lawyer, and california law has all sorts of strange wrinkles. Plus, the complaint raises a claim for "misappropriation of trade secrets" which sounds like it may have some common law component as wall as a statutory aspect(??). But here, in any case, is an arguably relevant statute, Cal Civil Code sec. 3426.1:
If the above is the law that applies, and if the person who reverse engineered and disclosed had a contractual obligation NOT to, and if the named defendants knew or should have known these facts and if the court has jurisdiction over them, then and only then this statute suggests the judge may grant the injunction.Please don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that outcome, just reporting. I should also note that sec. 3426.2(a) says that injunctions must be lifted if someone demonstrates that the "trade secret has ceased to exist" and that sec. 3426.2(b) says that "If the court determines that it would be unreasonable to prohibit future use, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time the use could have been prohibited."
All that aside, an injuction against "linkers" as opposed to posters would seem to me to be outrageous. But there is a little bit of (ugly) precedent floating around....
Final point: while showing up in numbers can't hurt, it would be a lot better if one of the free software groups could get a lawyer down there and attempt to appear either as an intervenor or as a friend of the court. Much more likely to have some effect. Spectators are not allowed to talk in court.
A. Michael Froomkin [mailto],
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA
Everything to do with DMCA (Score:5)
You're right, a good reading of the injunction makes clear that they're not defending the terrible copy protection in the dvd mechanism. However, this has a lot to do with recent changes in the U.S. copyright laws, I recommend that folks read H.R. 2281 [dfc.org] - The Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The Library of Congress has an easier to read summary [loc.gov] online.
What it really comes down to is that the defendants were informed that they should have removed the offending materials and refused to do so (it's right at the top... of the injunction [min.net] right beneath the 69K of MS-XML.) They can't touch the guy who wrote DeCSS because he complied upon notification of transgression.
If you haven't yet actually read anything about the DMCA, you'll find the WIPO/Title I sections useful in understanding what they new laws have to say about reverse engineering of the sort used in DeCSS. WIPO is the World Intellectual Property Organization, and Title I is the U.S. Congress ratifying general new international agreements about intellectual property. Read Educause's summary [educause.edu], particularly the section on: "Prohibitions on Circumvention of Technological Protection Measures ."
Pratik Dave .edu sites. Since we're (academic sites == service providers) monetarily culpable if we don't take "prompt" action upon notification, seems like someone at rpi dropped the ball.
ps: Given the specific burden of proof placed upon service providers and their DMCA agents given by the DMCA, I'm especially shocked that some of the defending sites were
This part doesn't take effect for a few months, but see if you don't find it the slightest bit relevant (and frightening):
''(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS.--(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
''(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
''(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
''(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.
Cite for home taping decision (Score:3)
That covers the entire decision. The rest of the
site has a lot of related material to home recording, although not to fair use of DVD's you bought.
What I plan to do. (Score:4)
And yes, I am on the East coast, and will not be able to be at the hearing. Anyone and everyone who is within range, GO, please, and make your voice heard.
This is about intellectual freedom, not "copyright infringement" or violation of trade secrets.
In defense.... (Score:4)
I believe that the views expressed on Slashdot deserve more of a voice than the archives of a web site... here is their chance. The following are the articles which I have found on Slashdot which go along this theme:
Re:Hand out free floppies at the courthouse! (Score:5)
This is a REALLY cool idea that deserves more discussion. Show up with a duffle bag full of floppies with the DeCSS source code.
Be prepared for some VERY pissed off lawyers.
Unfortunately, I am nowhere near California. Otherwise, I would be cranking out floppies right now.
Who let the RIA design our mass storage? (Score:5)
This debate is rightly focused on issues of free speech and openess of hardware specifications, but there is another BIG issue that isn't getting much air time: how the heck did we get into a situation where our mass removable storage systems are being designed by the recording industry and movie industry? What is all that encryption hardware doing in there and why does it make my computer work better? To put this another way, why are we being served up hardware that was designed in the best interests of people who aren't us, and why do we accept that?
This kind of market inversion is the same thing that has forced the spectaular rise of the open source movement. Owners of proprietray, closed source, defacto standard software systems ground us under their foot for so long that we had to react. Now what we need is a similar, open hardware movement. Sure, there are problems that are harder - designing hardware requires expensive equipment. Manufacturing it requires even more expensive equipment. But it's not like it used to be - prices are coming down. Money for open projects is abundant. So please, lets have a high-density ROM disk design that's designed according to our needs, not those of the RIA.
I want it to be a smaller format - 5 1/4 should have gone out with 5 1/4 disks, sucks for laptops and won't fit in your pocket. I want it to have current densities - in other words, even higher than what DVD offers. I want it to be completely free of any hardware that isn't directly connected with making it work better and/or cost less.
Who will design my dream ROM disk for me? Who will bankroll them? Who will manufacture it? How would we make it hit critical mass so laptop manufacturers will use it? (hint: make it cheap)
DVD was a bad idea right from the start and still is. Take out the "V", all I want is the Digigital and Disk
Trade Secret Law of 1996 could screw defendants.. (Score:3)
Section 1832 of the Act makes it a federal criminal act for any person to convert a trade secret to his own benefit or the benefit of others intending or knowing that the offense will injure any owner of the trade secret. The conversion of a trade secret is defined broadly to cover every conceivable act of trade secret misappropriation including theft, appropriation without authorization, concealment, fraud artifice, deception, copying without authorization, duplication, sketches, drawings, photographs, downloads, uploads, alterations, destruction, photocopies, transmissions, deliveries, mail, communications, or other transfers or conveyances of such trade secrets without authorization.
The Act also makes it a federal criminal offense to receive, buy or possess the trade secret information of another person knowing the same to have been stolen, appropriated, obtained or converted without the trade secret owner's authorization.The definition of a "trade secret" in the Act generally tracks the definition of a trade secret in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act but expands the definition of a trade secret to include the new technological ways that trade secrets are created and stored.
The term "trade secret" means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by the public.
I am not a lawyer and have no plans to be one, but reading the above and doing some research seems to me that the DVD makers can screw the defendants that are in the US partially. Yes, DVD is wrong on this, but they can still kill the people that tried to make Linux support for DVD.
IMO DVD is going to lose a lot of potential customers and hopefully get bad publicity. What should be done is someone that knows a columist/newsman at a major station is to give this case publicity. If CNN were to get the info for a story on this from us rather than the DVD people they might actually get thier story right (see etoy vs etoys fiasco)
We also ought to patent the decrypter programs or GPL them if they are not already. DVD does not have a patent on its encryption algorithm as far as I am aware. Could some one reply with the feasibility of this option. As for me, I will be busy distributing the decoder via Hotline (www.bigredh.com - if its warez, its hotline) and uploading it to every webserver I find. (I have a far amount of spare time on my hands... so alot of people gonna get deCSS). While
Once I was a drone - Now I am an Engineer
Re:Info - How to name your mirrors (Score:3)
... and operates an Internet Web Site addressed as http://domain.com/lawyers-suck/and/this-is-harras
Re:Everything to do with DMCA (Score:5)
The conditions you mention all contain the qualification that the code not have any significant commercial impact or legitimate use. The DeCSS code was designed for the sole purpose of writing a DVD player for Linux. This has commercial impact, as it will become essential for Linux to have an impact in the consumer market, and it is legitimate - at least as legitimate as playing DVDs on Windows is. I doubt that an argument could be made that playing DVDs on a computer is illegitimate unless you run monopolistic OSes.
I don't believe that the DVD lawyers are using this tactic. Their angle is that the license for the Xing DVD player forbids reverse engineering, which was done to extract the initial keys, and they violated this license and revealed trade secret information. I can't see how they can win from a legal standpoint, but the whole "bleed them dry" legal strategy can't be counted out.
Of course, neither can the "whack-a-mole heavy mirroring" and "foreign development" legal counter-strategies be dismissed easily, so I guess it's a fair fight.
:-)
Re:On your mark, get set, go! Start mirroring! (Score:3)
Re:This issue has nothing to do with piracy (Score:3)
For one thing, the size of hard drives seems to have already outpaced the maximum theoretical 17gb limit on DVD disks. Seagate et al have announced +50gb hard drives available in a matter of months. And it's only a matter of time before full-featured dual-layer DVD burners will fall under the thousand dollar mark, then under the five hundred, and to the point where every electronics boutique under the sun has them (just like their CD counterparts.) As for the bandwidth to share this all, both the government and private industry are virtually begging for more of it, and it's generally agreed that bandwidth will be so abundant in the near future so as to be a non-issue.
The moral of the story is it has everything to do with piracy. It would take a complete idiot to see the asskicking that RIAA and the music industry in general are taking right now as a result of piracy and not foresee that happening in just a few more years for the entertainment industry too, and I submit to you that the major studios are not filled with idiotic people. If nothing else, think of why they instituited CSS in the first place - you argue that it's about control, which is partially right. But even more than that, they knew that DVD would become technologically piratable in a matter of years after it was released, and they sought to do the only thing they knew how to do: make it cryptographically impossible. With the crypto out of the picture, they've really been caught with their pants down, and they know it.
--
The cat is out of the bag. (Score:4)
... provided they have agreed to keep the secret. If somebody who has NOT entered such a contract with the secret's owner figures out the secret (by himself, with no "guilty knowlege" obtained from someone else who violate such a contract), he is under no obligation to remain silent.
Patents give a government-enforced limited-time monopoly in return for disclosure of the invention. (They exist to encourage the development and disclosure of such ideas.)
Trade secrets can last longer, but they last only as long as the secret is kept. After that they pop like a bubble. The only thing left once the cat is out of the bag is a legal claim against the person who let it out - IF he obtained the secret in violation of an agreement or from an agreement violator.
Caveat: I'm not a lawyer yadda yadda...
DMCA contradicts Trade Secret laws (Score:3)
Once the knowledge protected by a trade secret becomes public (by legal or even illegal means) it is no longer a trade secret. This fact has been verified by a respected patent lawyer with a JD. Therefore, the only way that a trade secret remains intact is by it truly remaining secret. If by any means (including reverse engineering) it becomes public knowledge, then the trade secret ceases to exist.
For a good primer on current US intellectual property laws, head over to my old EE professor's web site at:
http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~kort um/ee302/lecture/IP/ [utexas.edu]
The PDF version of the lecture is available at:
http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~k ortum/ee302/lecture/IP.pdf [utexas.edu]
This lecture was recently written by a patent lawyer, so I would definitely assume that it is timely and accurate.
IIRC the EFF is ooking for a plaintiff (Score:4)
This is about intimidation -- the DVD Forum has allot more to lose in a trial than a plaintiff does.
Fair Use, Section 117(a), and the Cohen Doctrine (Score:3)
And I also can't really speak to the merits of the charge of misappropriation of trade secrets. Note that trade secrets as an area of law is largely defined at the state level, so you'll need to look into California law.
Having said that, there is some case law in the 9th circuit (which includes California) that may be positive.
Although the charge is misappropriation of trade secrets, it seems that the underlying complaint is an enablement of violation of copyright. If this underlying complaint can be answered then the misappropriation is harmless.
I argue that the defendants have a right to possession of the DeCSS software under section 117(a) of Title 17 of the US Code. Briefly, that section of law limits the exclusive right of copyright holders of software; owners have the explicit right to make backup copies for their own archival purposes.
This was has been tested in case law, and unfortunately I don't have my law books handy, but a case in the mid-eighties concerned a maker of a disk-copying software sued by a maker of copy-protection software. The defendant successfully argued that since owners have a right to back up software, and they could not do so without his (or similar) product, his product was legal.
This is the tricky step: DVDs contain software and data. I argue that the right to backup software extends to the entire disk, including data. As a broader claim, we can fall back on fair use; since DSS stops us from fair use of the movie, we have a right to employ software that gives us back those rights.
This theory is discussed in Lessig's excellent book _Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace_. A legal theorist (not related) named Cohen says that we have the right to hack copy-protection schemes that violate fair use. This is known as the Cohen Doctine.
Summary (Score:3)
So, let us summarize this:
This is just too obviously bogus. Evidently they are only trying to spread FUD.
They might have had a case against Derek Fawcus, although even that seems dubious. Now that he retracted, they have no case against anyone.
E pur si muove!
this url drives to the heart of the matter (Score:3)
http://domain.com/any.lawyer.who/quotes.this.url/g ives.permission/for.his.residence.to.be. searched/any.bootleg.audio/video/tape.found/nullif ies.legal.and.moral.standing/dvd-source. txt
Re:Who let the RIA design our mass storage? (Score:3)
Hmm. I like the idea of an open hardware movement. Are there any current efforts being made yet to brand an "open standard compatible" logo?
It seems to me hardware that has met some kind of open standard requirements would be preferable to most consumers. Obviously simply creating such a logo isn't going to make a difference on its own. In time however, it could end up being identified with products of superior quality and use to the end user.
I don't think your typical end-user is going to be incredibly knowledgable about open standards and such. That's why a simple recognizable icon/logo is important.
I have a feeling someone is going to pop up and say "hey, people are already working on this...here's the link..." Hope so. At any rate, I think more thought/effort should be put into an "open" branding scheme of some sort.
numb