"If You Can Put It On A T-Shirt, It's Speech" 478
Carnegie Mellon Professor David Touretzky testified before the court on this very issue. (See his Gallery of CSS Descramblers.)
Here's Touretzky being questioned:
19 Q. The next item, the DeCSS T-shirt, why did you post this on
20 the website on the gallery?
21 A. Well, this is a photograph of a T-shirt that's offered for
22 sale by an outfit called CopyLeft, and I purchased one of
23 those shirts myself. And the point of including it here is it
24 seems to me that there is some confusion among all the parties
25 in this case about whether something is speech or not.
1 And my reaction is if you can put it on a T-shirt,
2 it's speech. And so the point of showing the T-shirt was to
3 illustrate that and, also, to raise the question if this
4 T-shirt, itself, would have to be prohibited, then I wonder
5 what would happen to me if I wore the shirt in public.
6 Wearing the shirt in public could, perhaps, be interpreted as
7 engaging in trafficking a circumvention device.
8 So if one really wants to afford the plaintiffs the
9 protection that they seek, I think I would only be able to
10 wear my shirt in the privacy of my own home and must not go
11 outdoors with it.
Touretzky drew up a lengthy argument showing that if the DeCSS source code were banned, the only way to prevent that knowledge from being transmitted would be to ban it in all its forms - image file, various perturbations of the code into forms similar to plain English, annotated commentary, even on t-shirts and hidden in image files - all of these would have to be banned because the source code is easily retrievable from all of them. The Technical Term for this is "opening up a can of worms". Touretzky was trying to show the court that the issue was hardly open-and-shut - if you look at it one way, it's a device which can perform a task, but if you look at it another, it's speech that's expressive and communicative. If you're a programmer who's never taken much of a look at the legal issues surrounding computer programs, it may be patently obvious to you that code is speech, but to the judicial system, it is not so clear.
The judge was apparently much impressed, and started seriously thinking about the free-speech implications of banning DeCSS, possibly for the first time in the case. He seemed to take Touretzky's argument to heart - either all would have to be banned, or none. Apparently the MPAA took Touretzky's argument to heart as well, and they're therefore doing what is necessary to remain consistent with their argument: going after the T-shirts.
Maybe they'll go after the New York Times as well. Perhaps if the Times gets dragged into the case for posting an image of the illegal shirt, it might finally become clear to all and sundry that this case is about much more than copyright infringement.
Subject: [CAFE-News] EFF DeCSS Trial Summary
DVD Update: July 31, 2000
Universal City Studios et al v. 2600 Magazine
EFF DeCSS Trial Summary:
Facts in EFF's Favor as MPAA Claims Collapse Under Scrutiny
EFF defense team established a solid record at trial that the major film studios are attempting to use the DMCA to ban DeCSS so it can monopolize the DVD player market. Despite its immense investigative resources and months of effort, the MPAA was forced to concede at trial that it could not find a single instance of piracy related to the software. The First Amendment rights of all citizens have been endangered because of the studios' panic and over reaction.
Norwegian teenager Jon Johansen testified for the defense that he was working to build a DVD player for the Linux operating system when he posted the program to the LiVid list that he and two others authored. LiVid Project Leader Matthew Pavlovich testified that his development group used DeCSS to create a Linux DVD player that can compete with the studios' and DVD-CCA's current monopoly on DVD players. The studios were hoping to ban the software before a competing DVD player could be created that is not required by a CSS license to restrict features which allow people to exercise their legal rights. Journalist Emmanuel Goldstein, the editor of 2600 Magazine testified that he published the code in his reporting of Hollywood's crazed reaction to the software's existence, when the studios launched this legal attack against him.
The high point of trial was the electrifying testimony of Professor David Touretzky of Carnegie Mellon University's Computer Science Department, EFF's final witness before resting its case. Touretzky explained to the court how computer programmers use computer code to communicate to one another with precision. He showed the court how an injunction against DeCSS chills his ability to express himself. Judge Lewis Kaplan stated Touretzky's testimony was "persuasive" and "educational" and would likely change his First Amendment analysis of the case. The judge did not indicate that he intends to rule in favor of defendants however, and EFF is prepared to take an immediate appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Trial briefs are due August 8 and a short turn-around is expected for a ruling.
After the close of trial, DVD-CCA filed a motion to intervene in the NY litigation to fight EFF's challenge to unseal the Xing CSS license entered into evidence. DVD-CCA has requested to keep its CSS license out of the public record and Judge Kaplan will accept papers opposing DVD-CCA's intervention and secrecy request until August 2 at 5p.m.
You can subscribe to EFF's mailing list to receive the regular DVD updates. To subscribe, email majordomo@eff.org and put this in the text: subscribe cafe-news
EFF's archive of MPAA v 2600 litigation:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org) is the leading global nonprofit organization linking technical architectures with legal frameworks to support the rights of individuals in an open society. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to support free expression, privacy, and openness in the information society. EFF is a member-supported organization and maintains one of the most-linked-to Web sites in the world.
I have a solution for this DeCSS problem (Score:2)
First, we need an ACCESS PROTECTION DEVICE. Let's say that our access protection is to invert all the bits in a file: exchange 1's with 0's, and 0's with 1's. Now, we need a body of copyrighted works. I'm sure we could get some submissions, perhaps we could copyright an entire thread of petrified natalie portman spam. Finally, we distribute our body of copyrighted works with our ACCESS PROTECTION DEVICE engaged - we bit flip all the ascii. End step 1.
Step 2: create a license for authorized access to our copyrighted works. The license would be:
1) by viewing these works you agree never to file a lawsuit again, ever.
2) by viewing these works you agree to strip naked and run screaming down the street if we should ever call upon you to do it.
Now, the third and masterful step:
3) Encrypt the DeCSS source code using our bit-inversion ACCESS CONTROL DEVICE. Think about it - if they try to prove that we're distributing the code, then we can prove that they were in violation of the terms of our license (they sued us) AND we can charge them with trafficking in a device specifically designed for circumventing access protections to a body of copyrighted works!
Oh yes, we'd have them by the short curlies!
Then we could sue their fat asses.
The next step, of course, is to get the english language declared to be an access control mechanism, and license it. but first things first.
Of course it's ridiculous, but then hey, they're banning t-shirts and declaring martial law in seattle, so why the fuck not?
morons.
But WHO has the copyright to the *code*? (Score:2)
Your Calvin & Hobbes argument might make sense if it was a movie that was being reproduced on the t-shirt. You are confusing the copyrighted content with the method that MAY be used to access it. In the frame of your argument, the banned t-shirt would contain instructions detailing how to read the comics section of your local newspaper.
The MPAA does NOT own the copyright to the DeCSS code, and THAT is what is being reproduced on the shirt.
Now, the questions the argument poses are:
Should a person be able to communicate instructions that describe how to *access* copyrighted materials?
Should that communication be restrained by the DMCA, or is it protected by the right to free speech?
Bringing quality to Anonymous Coward posts since 1999
Re:More!!! (Score:2)
Re:Control (Score:2)
Uh, no. Open Source is a particular type of distribution, controlled by copyright law. Copyright law gives the author the ability to control distribution. Making DeCSS open source means that the author chose, under his copyright, to distribute it in a certain way. It's still copyrighted.
Now, if you had said public domain, you'd be be right. However, DeCSS was not released to the public domain. (Maybe he should have.)
...phil
Banning books on making bombs: Not in USA. (Score:2)
What is NOT legal is selling a book that advocates USING one of those bombs. Speech which has the purpose of inciting to violence is not protected speech, the courts have ruled. Speech which merely shows how to make an instrument of violence, on the other hand, is protected. Given this, it's hard to see how, considering that the judge has basically concluded that code is speech, he could conclude that code can be banned... it does not, after all, provide an incitation for violence, it merely gives the "blueprint" for a "copyright bomb".
-E
Re:T-shirts as a distribution medium? (Score:2)
If you encode a copyrighted music file in a mp3, and put it on a t-shirt (see also the comments about uuencoding or such) and wear it in public you are fine because that is courts have held that medium transfers (they use a different term) is fair use.
However if you see the t-shirt without including the orginial recording (or vise vera sell the CD without including the t-shirt) you are now illegal.
Re:T-Shirts can be banned too (Score:2)
It probably doesn't matter when CSS was broken. They can't touch Jon Johansen anyway. He didn't break any laws in his country. That seems to have been established now.
What the MPAA is doing is trying to make the distribution of the code illegal in the US which they claim is a violation of the DMCA.
Don't really have to... (Score:2)
The way I understand it, any conversion of a text or other form of copyrighted work into another format would be considered a derivative work, which is still subject to the copyright, and therefore illegal without the copyright holder's consent.
Re:T-Shirt does NOT equal Free Speech... (Score:2)
If by "public mall" you really mean "convince the owner of a privately owned shopping mall to ban said shirts", you may have more success.
Re:Touretzky is wrong, and I'll prove it (Score:2)
on the other hand, if you wrote a random number generator that spit out visa numbers, and one of them happened to be Mr. Touretzky's, printed that on a shirt, you would be (i think) legal.
the argument lies in that DeCSS code was created by a kid in sweden. He did not break into MPAA's secret underground lair (pinky to mouth), steal their code, and publish it.
Re:copyright/left is not the point of the tshirt! (Score:2)
If someone comes up with code that has the same function but was developed independently (even by reverse-engineering), they aren't infringing a trade secret. (If they copy code literally, they may be infringing a copyright, but that's an entirely different matter.)
A trade secret is infringed when someone who is privy to the secret divulges it to another party without authorization of the owner of the trade secret.
If I invent a new lawnmower mechanism, and choose to keep the details of how it works as a trade secret (rather than, for instance, applying for a patent), anyone who is not privy to my trade secret can legally purchase the lawnmower, disassemble it, figure out how it works, and build comparable lawnmowers of their own. This woul dnot infringe my trade secret.
But if I have an employee, perhaps a person on the assembly line, who is privy to my trade secret, and he posts the information on a web site (or otherwise disseminates it to unauthorized persons), he has infringed the trade secret, and the people to whom he disseminated the information might be in posession of stolen property.
You can discuss the analogies at length ... (Score:2)
You can discuss at length analogies (I love those ...) between speech and singing and T-shirts and protected speech ... However, the really funny part of this is .. what's the exact wording in the DMCA? What is *exactly* forbidden? A "device ... used to circumvent"? Now, someone's got to tell me how a t-shirt, a photograph of the code, a GIF file with the code embedded in it or whatever you can think of is a fucking "device" which has no other commercial purpose than circumventing a fucking copy protection scheme? It's not even a "device", it can't be used to circumvent anything, it's just a fucking T-Shirt / photo / gif.
(Now I'd like to see that subpoena, is it a real one or just a publicity stunt?)
Can you copyright a number? (Score:2)
Can you get a copyright on a number?
Obviously any piece of information can be coded into just about any number you want if you allow for a wide enough variation in coding methods.
Where then is the copyrightable information, is it in the coded form, or the codeing algorithm or only in a combination of both.
To what form of the information does the copyright hold, only the original, or any mutable combination thereof. Say Bob Jones software publishes some code on a CD protecting it by copyright. Does the copyright apply to any other coded form of the CD or just the original. With the right mapping any CD is just a coded copy of any other CD. So every CD is theoretically in violation of the copyright of every other CD.
Copyright law really needs revision now!
Re:T-Shirts can be banned too (Score:2)
Re:The Widget Machine (Score:2)
Can't be. 'cause if it was patented, the algorithm would have been public knowledge (patents ARE public knowledge), and writing DeCSS would have not necessitated any reverse engineering at all, and would have been done mere days after the first DVDs hit the market.
So, that's why CSS is a trade secret rather than a patent or a copyright: "security" through obscurity.
But once you let the genie out of the bottle, it ain't coming back in...--
Here's my mirror [respublica.fr]
Different laws, different rules (Score:2)
Unfortunately, this is different than trying to restrain speech for national security interests, which has more than once been ruled unconstitutional (remember the Pentagon Papers, anyone?).
The Sony Bono Copyright Extention Act was, based upon those constitutional requirements, clearly unconstitutional even to the most casual observer. Unfortunately, the courts upheld that law. There is a possibility the courts will rule parts of the DMCA unconstitutional, but no guarantee. If not, this kind of speech can and will be restricted in the future, just as you are restricted from reprinting and selling a written work in some other format (Reader's Digest lost such a suit when reprinting substantial portions of novels).
Copyright is the greatest threat to free speech there is, in no small part because the constitution explicitly permits its existence (other restrictions on speech, such as trademark, aren't explicitly spelled out and are correspondingly weaker).
Imagine if the Pentagon had been able to suppress the pentagon papers based on copyright. Hell, that could be applied to any leaked document. All of a sudden every investigative reporter is completely hemmed in by copyright law and can acquire no evidence of wrongdoing without violating copyright. This is the direction copyright law has taken and is taking, and there is the possibility that the constitutionality of this may actually be upheld!
I will say it again. Copyright is the single greatest threat to free speech that currently exists. We should be seriously reevaluating the appropriateness of its existence in a free society.
Re:My two cents of the morning (Score:2)
1 - Spam should be outlawed, while source code is speech
There's a HUGE difference between "being allowed to say something" and "being forced to hear someone say something."
Even freakish neo-nazi extremists have the right to SAY whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they have the right to stand outside my window and make ME listen to them saying it. Spam amounts to forcing, tricking,or otherwise causing someone to see an advertisement that they may not have wanted to.
2 - Music is just bits, and should not afforded any protection, yet again, source code is a constitutional right.
The fact that this attitude isn't really hypocritical either is less cut-and-dried than the first one, but here goes:
In the case of both the music and the source code here, the 'right' being claimed is that "I have it, and I should be allowed to look at it as closely as I want, all the way down to source code". Since the 'bits' in the case of music amounts to the 'source code' of the mp3/ogg file, I see nothing hypocritical about this at all.
But, then, that's just me.
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Re:T-Shirts can be banned too (Score:2)
Re:My two cents of the morning (Score:2)
The overall sentiment is that although the advertisers should be fully allowed to speak in any form (A la free speech), they have no right to force me to pay for them to send me ads. I pay for my bandwidth, and every e-mail I get has a real cost. It's like sending you a postage due letter (that for some reason you have NO choice but to pay for) to tell you my opinions. Is that fair? No. So this is a seperate issue from freedom of speech - they can talk all they want, but they have no right to FORCE me to pay for them talking to me.
2 - Music is just bits, and should not afforded any protection, yet again, source code is a constitutional right.
A) I think most people around here would be happy to apply the same rules rules across both. 1. Allow copying of both music and source code. 2. Allow the author of both music and source code to express themselves freely.
You are comparing apples and oranges in both cases.
Let's start a religion (Score:2)
I'd LOVE to see the MPAA et al, not only try to ban a book, but a Holy Book to boot. It's not just about freedom of speach, but also about freedom of religion.
Then we can all take one character of the DeCSS printout, and stand in a long line while our "Pastor of Muppets" types it into a computer. This way we include the freedom of assembly.
Fsck the MPAA in accordance with the Law Of The Land, not in-spite of it. Play by the rules of the lawmakers to point out the absurdity of big business.
Re:Control (Score:2)
Re:Control (Score:2)
Actually, you're wrong in this case. IIRC, a trade secret loses its status as such if a large amount of people is aware of it (adding flour to water isn't Wonderbread's trade secret, but the method of making Coke is Coca-Cola's trade secret (yes, I know that's not 100% legally kosher, but it's close enough for this argument)). Therefore, if everyone on the internet gets a copy of DeCSS it can be argued that the MPAA isn't properly enforcing its trade secret/the MPAA can't realistically enforce its trade secret, so it's no longer a trade secret.
BTW, the last sentance is actually almost a halfway-valid reason the MPAA should sue CopyLeft (if there is such a thing.Cool! (Score:2)
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is"
Re:My two cents of the morning (Score:2)
Advertising itself should not be outlawed, but violators of the above should be prosecuted. Ban it and they'll still do it. Make those rules and people that follow the law will probably have an easier time than those who don't, making it impractical to NOT follow those rules.
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is"
oops... (Score:2)
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is"
More details? (Score:2)
Oh and by the way, for some odd reason the ordering system at Copyleft is really swamped right now.
---
Re:More!!! (Score:2)
Re:And the dolphin code on ThinkGeek? (Score:2)
http://www.thinkgeek.com/rsa-dolphin.html [thinkgeek.com]
--------------------
Re:My two cents of the morning (Score:2)
A spammer can put his ad on a t-shirt, AFAIC, just not *my* t-shirt.
That's the difference.
Cohen v. California (Score:2)
In 1972, Paul Cohen wore a jacket with the words "Fuck the Draft" written on it into a LA court house. He was arrested for "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct." When the appeals process ended up in the Supreme Court, the justices held that to censure Cohen for wearing the jacket was tanamount to censuring his opionions on the war. Here are some exerpts from the decision as rendered by Justice Harlan and joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, and Marshall:
The conviction quite clearly rests upon the asserted offensiveness of the words Cohen used to convey his message to the public. The only "conduct" which the State sought to punish is the fact of communication. Thus, we deal here with a conviction resting solely upon "speech," cf. Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), not upon any separately identifiable conduct which allegedly was intended by Cohen to be perceived by others as expressive of particular views but which, on its face, does not necessarily convey any message and hence arguably could be regulated without effectively repressing Cohen's ability to express himself.
To my eyes, this seems to remove all trace of wrong doing from Copyleft. It is merely expressing itself, not actually removing the CSS. Even if DeCSS is consider unlawful, Copyleft cannot be held equally responsible, nor can any individual who wears one of the shirts.
Appellant's conviction, then, rests squarely upon his exercise of the "freedom of speech" protected from arbitrary governmental interference by the Constitution and can be justified, if at all, only as a valid regulation of the manner in which he exercised that freedom, not as a permissible prohibition on the substantive message it conveys.
Once again the shirt cannot be held to be illegal unless itself violates valid regulation of speech. Generally, these "valid regulations" are held to be such things as "fighting words" (speech that can be reasonably assumed to incite violence), obscenity (remember that man in MI who was fined for swearing in front of women and children?), and some other very narrowly defined situations. None of these seem to apply to Copyleft.
Additionally, we cannot overlook the fact, because it [403 U.S. 15, 26] is well illustrated by the episode involved here, that much linguistic expression serves a dual communicative function: it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated. Indeed, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter has said, "[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures - and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation." Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673 -674 (1944).
This is precisely the situation with DeCSS, though this time we are speaking out against corporations instead of the state. To wear a DeCSS t-shirt is to "criticize public men and measures." CSS has flaws (in most geeks' opinions) and this T-shirt by Copyleft expresses those opinions. Just as Cohen spoke out against the draft by wearing his shirt, so should geeks speak out against CSS by wearing theirs.
Alot of people are saying that geeks don't have a political cause. The harken back to the days of Vietnam and those protests. But if you look carefully, history is repeating itself! This DeCSS shirt debate is not very dissimilar to that of Cohen.
Well, this concludes our Constitutional Law 101 class for today. Their might be a pop quiz tomorrow, so study up! Class dismissed.
-Mark Fredrickson (I'm not a law prof so don't consider any of this stuff accurate!)
Nitpick (Score:2)
RIAA is suing Napster over MP3s
MPAA is suing EVERYBODY over DeCSS and DVDs.
Sorry, it gets fubared so much, I had to correct it...
Re:T-Shirts can be banned too (Score:2)
And that brings us full circle: is this law constitutional, as it restricts speech? The answer is hopefully no (oh, and IANAL). The examples you give involve distributing someone else's information without their consent, causing another person's life to be in jeopardy, or damaging the security of the country. I challenge you, however, to demonstrate how DeCSS fits into this category.
The code was distributed freely, thereby allowing Copyleft access to it, defeating the first case. So far as I'm aware, walking around with the code for DeCSS on one's shirt is unlikely to force them to kill themselves/others, so kiss the second case bye-bye. And (despite the MPAA's hopes to the contrary) the nation WILL continue to thrive, regardless of whether or not they hold an absolute monopoly over the distribution of DVD players (and seeing how they couldn't document a single case of DeCSS being used to pirate a DVD...), so the final case is baloney, too.
On a side note, the moderator who marked the meta-parent for this discussion as "Redundant" should probably be shot. Post #11 isn't likely to be redundant.
ZDNet story - this is the California DVD-CCA case! (Score:2)
The story says this is about the California case in which the DVD-CCA (copy and control association) is claiming misappropriation of trade secrets which has nothing to do with the DMCA or the MPAA. They are going after hundreds of defendants, not just 1 (originally 3) like the MPAA is. However it is questionable whether this STATE court will have any binding effect on defendants outside California. The DVD-CCA is the organization that is in charge of selling css decoding licenses to various hardware and software manufactures.
Re:T-Shirts can be banned too (Score:2)
Yes. It can be indecent to wear the shirt in public due to certain communities standards. That does not mean that you cannot distribute the shirt. Indecency does not prevent commerce (as the porn industry can readily agree).
If it is decided that mere source code is illegal, then its propogation via T-shirt print is, sadly, as illegal.
Again, it's not quite that simple. If the source code is ruled as copyright infringement, then the t-shirt is illegal unless it falls under fair use. If the source is ruled legal under DCMA, it may have different implications, but there are no precendents to determine what it would means.
There's nothing special about T-Shirts, they're merely another medium.
Finally, something I agree with. Yes, a t-shirt is just another medium, but it is a perfect tool for showing how code = speech. If the DeCSS case starts to be viewed under free speech rights (as the judge appears to be leaning), then the question becomes does the DCMA infringe on free speech. Free speech is not universal (child pornography being the prime example). At the same time, courts have been loath to restrict free speech. The T-Shirt is just a magnificant visual aid to prove that code is nothing more than language. Most non-programmers have a hard time understanding this. I can think of nothing better than a T-Shirt to illustrate how code is language.
"Look I'm wearing a T-Shirt. It has DECSS Source on it. I'm wearing it because I disagree with the DCMA and the MPAA. I'm wearing it as a political protest. It is my form of political speech. In fact, while wearing this shirt, I am going to recite, from memory, the DECSS source. Are you going to stop me from speaking? Can you stop people from listening to me speak?"
It's not even words (Score:2)
Follow my logic here, okay? This is graphic designer logic, so it's a bit odd:
Want a better example? Emigre's Hypnopaedia [emigre.com]
One of the reasons why copyright on typefaces is so loose is that there is an unfounded fear that typographers (generally a good natured sort, no pun intended) would attempt to assert copyright over creative works which use their type. (That's why we have licenses. Just include a nice little license stating that, as the type designer, you do not make claims over the content. simple.)----
Your Popular Anecdotal Evidence Sucks Ass (Score:2)
The whole *point* of our legal system is that we *can* do things like this. If someone bigger and stronger than us screws us over, we have recourse to the law, where we hopefully receive justice. I know that the system has flaws, but it's better than having nowhere to go for these things, and having all those corporate lawyers doing whatever else they're useful for... err, dealing crack? Pimping? (That's all I could think of...)
Think for yourself and do some damn research before you go parroting a year-and-a-half old story that's half urban legend.
-grendel drago
I have one. (Score:2)
All told, including my re-subscription to 2600, I sent off a total of $65.00 - I am putting my money where my mouth is.
Fuck the MPAA!
Re:T-Shirts can be banned too (Score:2)
It's a sad precident when we have to ban any discussion of certain algorithms. What's next? Banning books on making bombs? Banning works of terrorism? Works by terrorists?
Once we go down that road, we're banning the Declaration of Independence (a work by terrorists)...
Re:T-Shirts can be banned too (Score:2)
Done. Done. and Done.
Re:Munition (Score:2)
Re:I'm convinced, finally.... (Score:2)
Can I have my karma now?
Re:I'm convinced, finally.... (Score:2)
Munition (Score:2)
Re:T-shirt data hiding (Score:2)
--
Taken to an extreme... (Score:2)
I'm not saying that this argument is necssarily a bad one, I just think that it has far more reaching implications than it first appears.
Also, if the law decides that not every string of letters is protected under free speech... then it's not necessarily the string of letters that should be restricted. It's possible that, under coding scheme A, that the string would be decoded as sound waves of a Metallica CD... and under coding scheme B, the string would be decoded as mom's chocolate chip cookies.
To make this point clear, someone could write a program (call it an "unzipper") that takes in the results of the Human Genome Project and spits out the source code to DeCSS or a Metallica MP3.
--
National secrets and free speech (Score:3)
Your point that not all speech is protected, however, is a good one. Speech that violates a contract is protected but can get you sued for breach of contract. But the bar for what speech is protected vs. not protected is rather high, and generally involves speech that has a likelihood of inciting violence or causing immediate harm to people. The bar is especially high when it is a media outlet involved, because you're not only dealing with free speech, you're dealing with free press, i.e., a double-whammy. I believe the judge in the EFF case has basically concluded that the code involved, as printed by 2600, is speech. However, he has asked the lawyers to make arguments as to whether it should be considered protected speech (bringing up the issue of the draft cards during the Vietnam era, where a judge says yes, burning them was speech, but it was not protected speech).
-E
Hrmph... (Score:3)
"curly bracket space print eff open parent-thhh quote hello world quote close parenth-thhh... boom chakalaka... semicolon..."
Software if not a product, its a medium. (Score:3)
Software is not a product, its a medium of expression
Knowledge is expressed in it as much as in oral tradition (very perishable and difficult to transmit,[like documentation by osmosis,]) or the via the written word which at least persists but is passive and inert, software is an interactive means of expression.
Furthermore it is about as patentable, and copy- rightable as anyother human language. I don't think, despite possible protestations of those much parodied and maligned "upper-class twits" who speak with proper received pronunciation" that it can even be considered to be owner, since much as it is the result of consensual aggregation of linguistic rules and recognizable algorithmic process.
Software is a medium. It is used to express knowledge in a form which is efficient, or at least self-sufficient, and beyond active (unlike the passivity of words on a page or audiences in a theatre,) it is interactive.
The industry consortia are not about rights. They are about control but control is a double edged sword.
Start a copyright infringement suit against them about using the English language without having obtained written prior consent (one might ask from who and in what language and that's the point!
)
Of course, they might very well try to control the use of the language next but I don't think that a suit could be expressed that did not itself violate the nature of the suit.
They are trying to control what you see, hear, think for their own profits.
Stop paying them for a few weks and catch a live show or a play, read a book, watch TV and let the wind of change blow through record stores and movie theatres. Give the next block-buster a pass. You can live with the alternatives and wait until is comes back in video.
It won't take long before they notice the deleterious effect of their own campain.
Re:I don't see the point (Score:3)
Out of all of the many, many ways that have been invented and discovered to decode CSS, the only one that is suitable for building a commercial unlicensed DVD player, without the player restrictions (Macrovision, no digital video output), is DeCSS.
That's the real stakes. Unlicensed, unrestricted players. Copying is a red herring.
Isn't this like PGP export? (Score:3)
Wouldn't a T-Shirt with DeCSS on it fall into the same category? The printed DeCSS code on a T-Shirt couldn't be considered a piracy tool any more than the printout of PGP sourcecode could be considered an encryption tool.
DeCSS is Public Record (Score:3)
So will the records be sealed, just because the MPAA says so? Or will the MPAA buy a Constitutional Ammendment against Free Speach?
Here's an idea. Someone dictate the DeCSS source code into an MP3, and start distributing it via Napster, with permission of course. Let's see how many law suits we can converge into one court-room. Maybe the MPAA and the RIAA can be made to target each-other and finally end this nonsense!
DeCSS != copyright (Score:3)
As for decency laws, that's complete bunk:
Anyone can proudly wear a Van Halen T-Shirt from the:
For
Unlawful
Carnal
Knowledge
album without a worry of "the law", as long as they paid a royalty. This isn't about law and ethics, it's about MONEY.
Re:Here's a question (Score:3)
2600 Magazine made a similar point when they wrote about what they would do if the judge issued an injunction requiring them to remove the code from their website. They wrote (paraphrasing): If we have to remove the code, we'll link to the code. If we have to remove the links, we'll write out the web addresses in ascii. If we have to remove the addresses, we'll display an image that contains the web addresses, if we have to remove that, we'll spell out the address (http colon slash slash www dot 2600 dot com slash (etc.)). 2600's point (Touretsky's (sp?) point) is that it'd be ludicrous to try and ban everything relating to the code for two reasons: persistant people (i.e. 2600) would find ways around it, and you'd have to create a virtual police state to enforce it.
Re:Old News (Score:3)
I think Joel Furr also used to sell a T-Shirt with an RSA implementation written in perl, in barcode form. The idea was to make a shirt that violated both the letter and the intent of the regulations (if worn outside USA). Sadly, I never got around to ordering one at the time... *sigh* I would kill for one of those nowdays. Well, maybe not kill, but happily spend the $20.
---
Re:T-shirt data hiding (Score:3)
I don't know, but I wore an RSA export code t-shirt under a sweater once, and got busted for concealing a weapon
Re:MPAA ... legal system abuses (Score:3)
Or: Imagine patenting RSA.
The role of lawyers in corporations today is unfortunately too much focussed on making legal behaviors (free speech not the least) become very expensive ... you have to pay for your free speech, big time.
In the case of RSA, the US Govt applied this knowledge in two basic ways to slow down the spread of cryptographic technology ... likely a better approach than the media monopolies took, but I hope they don't find a way to do the same:
What it's really going to come down to is that the US government has to decide whether it wants its accomodation with media organizations to be more like that between governments (which let themselves curtail fundamental human rights because they're the cops, and dammit they don't like "those kind of people" at all) ... or instead to be like it's supposed to be, where individual rights are more than hot air.
The thing to really watch out for is when the Executive or Legislative branches start getting in bed with the multinationals. Oh wait ... that's like the DMCA helping Disney or Warner, isn't it? Or the office of Drug Policy engaging in media payola to get propaganda out, closly in cahoots with private organizations that gain financially by continuing the current generation's major Prohibition?
The Legislative and Executive branches have too many ways to prevent the courts from seeing their non-constitutional acts. And what we need to see, but won't, is the Judicial system ripping new orifices into those other branches for pulling so much crap.
Re:More!!! (Score:3)
Of course that is more than enough to be ruled indecent, and such undergarments would quickly be banned.
Re:I'm convinced, finally.... (Score:3)
While I agree with your general frustration, I don't agree that the lawyers are the root cause. They are a symptom of a larger problem, which is: corporations lobbying Congress to create laws which favor them. In the extreme: no laws, no lawyers. Now, I'm not an anarchist, but if you take away Congress' ability to pass laws to protect corporations, you take away the lawyers' ability to get involved as well.
--jbI have an easy solution to this DeCSS problem! (Score:3)
First, we need an ACCESS PROTECTION DEVICE. Let's say that our access protection is to invert all the bits in a file: exchange 1's with 0's, and 0's with 1's. Now, we need a body of copyrighted works. I'm sure we could get some submissions, perhaps we could copyright an entire thread of petrified natalie portman spam. Finally, we distribute our body of copyrighted works with our ACCESS PROTECTION DEVICE engaged - we bit flip all the ascii. End step 1.
Step 2: create a license for authorized access to our copyrighted works. The license would be:
1) by viewing these works you agree never to file a lawsuit again, ever.
2) by viewing these works you agree to strip naked and run screaming down the street if we should ever call upon you to do it.
Now, the third and masterful step:
3) Encrypt the DeCSS source code using our bit-inversion ACCESS CONTROL DEVICE. Think about it - if they try to prove that we're distributing the code, then we can prove that they were in violation of the terms of our license (they sued us) AND we can charge them with trafficking in a device specifically designed for circumventing access protections to a body of copyrighted works!
Oh yes, we'd have them by the short curlies!
Then we could sue their fat asses.
The next step, of course, is to get the english language declared to be an access control mechanism, and license it. but first things first.
Of course it's ridiculous, but then hey, they're banning t-shirts and declaring martial law in seattle, so why the fuck not?
morons.
Re:Control (Score:3)
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Re:Control (Score:3)
The fact that it can be on a T-shirt doesn't by itself make it right - legally or ethically.
The fact that you can't stop it doesn't by itself make it right - legally or ethically.
The fact that there are millions of people doing it doesn't by itself make it right - legally or ethically.
These things combined, don't make something right - legally or ethically.
I can think of several things which fit these criteria and are still obviously wrong. Arguments like these confuse and detract from the main issue at hand and contribute to the perception of some people that the DeCSS code is being spread by anarchist kiddies instead of by people with a legitimate freedom issue.
Free speech, protected speech, and consequences (Score:3)
I wonder what Touretzky would do if I printed up t-shirt's with all his credit card numbers, addresses, social security numbers and then sold them. By his argument it would be legal (and right) to do so, because he incorrectly believes that anything which can be printed on a t-shirt (regardless of how the information was gathered) can be freely given to the world without consequence.
Soooooooo many people here on /. seem to have a problem understanding that there is a difference between civil liabilities due to free speech and any restriction placed upon that speech. The example given by the previous poster is spurious at best; it would be perfectly legal to disseminate that information, provided that (a) no laws had been broken in obtaining it, and (b) no legally-binding restrictions were being broken in giving out that information. Are there civil repercussions for what people might do with that information? Hell yeah! Doesn't make it any less free speech, does it? Slander and libel are excellent examples - you're free to say/print what you want about a person/place/thing, but be prepared for the responsiblities and liabilities that your words might incur.
Free speech - as in protected speech - is expression that does not violate criminal statutes by its very existence; it's free speech to tell everyone your neighbor buggers his dog, if you didn't break laws finding it out. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have a right to sue your ass into the ground if it's untrue.
Missing the point of the story (Score:3)
Touretsky is being disingenuous in his testimony. Buying and wearing the t shirt is an act of political speech, predominantly for the purpose of protest. That's not the same thing as distributing something in a mass medium for the purpose of having it compiled. Moreover, it's not a very effective means of disseminating the putative violation -- somehow, I can't see ten million script kiddies buying their 133t s41rts and typing the code in by hand!
Those are key facts. If the primary purpose in disseminating something is to protest, then it might be (and, in my opinion, probably is) protected speech, even if it's facially a violation of DCMA. Even if it isn't protected, the inefficiency of the medium is a sufficiently high barrier that it would almost certainly be protected under the traditional doctrine of fair use.
Contrast this to the case in front of the judge. Corley and 2600 are alleged to have intended to disseminate a cracking tool. If the plaintiffs show that, the protected speech defense fails. Moreover, they were using a highly efficient technique to disseminate the item: first, the source itself, then, links to the source. So, the secondary "fair use" defence fails.
Judges and juries are capable of makng that distinction. It's perfectly reasonable that the t-shirt is protected from DCMA, but the program and the links are not.
Re:More!!! (Score:3)
New Shirts? (Score:3)
MPAA is being driven into a corner (Score:3)
To put in mildly : eventually they will have to sue everybody else with even trivial connections to the code. Technically, they are know trying to patent an algorithm : which will be dangerous to the scientific and engineering community if they wins (so they won't : imagine Fourier patenting the Fourier Transform, or that Runge and Kutta patenting the RK4 algorithm!)
This is going to be fun
Re:More!!! (Score:3)
Edward Burr
Enemy of the State (Score:3)
And they thought 2600 was just a hacker rag...
(jeez... now I sound like katz
Wasn't this how PGP was legally exported? (Score:3)
When PGP was banned from use outside the US, someone found a way around the ban by printing the code, and taking the printed code overseas.
The idea was that the print-out was "speech" rather than "code", and therefore was exempt from the ban (because "speech" is protected by the constitution).
So, how does that translate to these T-shirts? Well, the issue is with code, right.. Or with software that can circumvent the encrption.
As I see it, these T-shirts are neither of the above, so how is the prosecution going to make this stick? If printed code is speech, then surely so is a printed t-shirt. It is surely protected by the constitution?
T-Shirts can be banned too (Score:3)
If it is decided that mere source code is illegal, then its propogation via T-shirt print is, sadly, as illegal.
There's nothing special about T-Shirts, they're merely another medium.
FatPhil
Re:More!!! (Score:3)
Excellent. Fatality. (Score:4)
Maybe eventually we can get rid of "programming patents", since all programming is expressible as a discrete system, and therefore can be formalized as math, and math cannot be patented.
However, any piece of digital information can be expressed as, say, one big number, and that can't be patented either. But tell that to the MPAA/RIAA...
Actually, I'd love to post, say, an mpeg of "The Matrix" in base 10. See if anyone bothers to download it and convert it, *or* tries to sue me.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
I bought a t-shirt for preicisely this reason (Score:4)
--
Re:T-Shirts can be banned too (Score:4)
Without the T-shirt, the court may have made the mistake of assuming that it was dealing with mere technology, rather than actual speech. Code is technology, and most technology is not speech. A car isn't free speech, is it? T-shirts show that, unlike most technology, software is speech.
T-shirts are just another medium, but it is a medium that non-geeks recognize as speech.
Print it on a dildo (Score:4)
-Vercingetorix
Software and the First Amendment (Score:4)
Software and the First Amendment [userland.com]
"There is no difference between code and writing. I think I can prove it. Manila, the content management system that I use, supports macros. When you put text in curly braces, as the page is rendered, the macro is evaluated. Such macros can be embedded in protected speech, ie prose. What goes inside the curly braces is program logic. So if I want First Amendment protection for my code all I have to do is embed it in a Web page."
John S. Rhodes
WebWord.com [webword.com] -- Usability Vortal and News Hub
Re:Here's a question (Score:4)
Ob. Analogy: It is illegal to take a gun and murder someone, but it's *also* illegal to setup a little rube goldberg device so that when the person opens a door, a rope pulls something off a shelf, that lands on the remote, which turns on the tv, which scares the dog, whose leash is attached to the trigger, so that when he runs across the room, the gun goes off. If your intent was the murder, then you will end up in jail.
- Isaac =)
Wet DeCSS Contest (Score:4)
How about this? (Score:4)
/*
* css_descramble.c
*
* Released under the version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus
*
* This file contains functions to descramble CSS encrypted DVD content
*
*/
/*
* Still in progress: Remove the use of the bit_reverse[] table by recoding
* the generation of LFSR1. Finish combining this with
* the css authentication code.
*
*/
#include
#include
#include "css-descramble.h"
typedef unsigned char byte;
/*
*
* some tables used for descrambling sectors and/or decrypting title keys
*
*/
static byte csstab1[256]=
{
0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x7e
0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e
0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1a
0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x98
0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7c
0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x9c
0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x18
0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a
0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x1e
0xb3,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe
0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a
0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0xf8
0x5d,0x1d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c
0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc
0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x78
0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa
};
static byte lfsr1_bits0[256]=
{
0x00,0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x09,0x08
0x12,0x13,0x10,0x11,0x16,0x17,0x14,0x15,0x1b,0x1a
0x24,0x25,0x26,0x27,0x20,0x21,0x22,0x23,0x2d,0x2c
0x36,0x37,0x34,0x35,0x32,0x33,0x30,0x31,0x3f,0x3e
0x49,0x48,0x4b,0x4a,0x4d,0x4c,0x4f,0x4e,0x40,0x41
0x5b,0x5a,0x59,0x58,0x5f,0x5e,0x5d,0x5c,0x52,0x53
0x6d,0x6c,0x6f,0x6e,0x69,0x68,0x6b,0x6a,0x64,0x65
0x7f,0x7e,0x7d,0x7c,0x7b,0x7a,0x79,0x78,0x76,0x77
0x92,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x96,0x97,0x94,0x95,0x9b,0x9a
0x80,0x81,0x82,0x83,0x84,0x85,0x86,0x87,0x89,0x88
0xb6,0xb7,0xb4,0xb5,0xb2,0xb3,0xb0,0xb1,0xbf,0xbe
0xa4,0xa5,0xa6,0xa7,0xa0,0xa1,0xa2,0xa3,0xad,0xac
0xdb,0xda,0xd9,0xd8,0xdf,0xde,0xdd,0xdc,0xd2,0xd3
0xc9,0xc8,0xcb,0xca,0xcd,0xcc,0xcf,0xce,0xc0,0xc1
0xff,0xfe,0xfd,0xfc,0xfb,0xfa,0xf9,0xf8,0xf6,0xf7
0xed,0xec,0xef,0xee,0xe9,0xe8,0xeb,0xea,0xe4,0xe5
};
static byte lfsr1_bits1[512]=
{
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
};
/* Reverse the order of the bits within a byte.
*/
static byte bit_reverse[256]=
{
0x00,0x80,0x40,0xc0,0x20,0xa0,0x60,0xe0,0x10,0x90
0x08,0x88,0x48,0xc8,0x28,0xa8,0x68,0xe8,0x18,0x98
0x04,0x84,0x44,0xc4,0x24,0xa4,0x64,0xe4,0x14,0x94
0x0c,0x8c,0x4c,0xcc,0x2c,0xac,0x6c,0xec,0x1c,0x9c
0x02,0x82,0x42,0xc2,0x22,0xa2,0x62,0xe2,0x12,0x92
0x0a,0x8a,0x4a,0xca,0x2a,0xaa,0x6a,0xea,0x1a,0x9a
0x06,0x86,0x46,0xc6,0x26,0xa6,0x66,0xe6,0x16,0x96
0x0e,0x8e,0x4e,0xce,0x2e,0xae,0x6e,0xee,0x1e,0x9e
0x01,0x81,0x41,0xc1,0x21,0xa1,0x61,0xe1,0x11,0x91
0x09,0x89,0x49,0xc9,0x29,0xa9,0x69,0xe9,0x19,0x99
0x05,0x85,0x45,0xc5,0x25,0xa5,0x65,0xe5,0x15,0x95
0x0d,0x8d,0x4d,0xcd,0x2d,0xad,0x6d,0xed,0x1d,0x9d
0x03,0x83,0x43,0xc3,0x23,0xa3,0x63,0xe3,0x13,0x93
0x0b,0x8b,0x4b,0xcb,0x2b,0xab,0x6b,0xeb,0x1b,0x9b
0x07,0x87,0x47,0xc7,0x27,0xa7,0x67,0xe7,0x17,0x97
0x0f,0x8f,0x4f,0xcf,0x2f,0xaf,0x6f,0xef,0x1f,0x9f
};
/*
*
* this function is only used internally when decrypting title key
*
*/
static void css_titlekey(byte *key, byte *im, byte invert)
{
unsigned int lfsr1_lo,lfsr1_hi,lfsr0,combined;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
byte k[5];
int i;
lfsr1_lo = im[0] | 0x100;
lfsr1_hi = im[1];
lfsr0 = ((im[4] >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24)&0xff];
combined = 0;
for (i = 0; i >1;
lfsr1_lo = ((lfsr1_lo&1)>7)^(lfsr0>>10)^(lfsr0>>11)^(lfsr0>>
o_lfsr0 = (((((((lfsr0>>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7)
lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0>= 8;
}
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]]^key[4];
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]];
}
/*
*
* this function decrypts a title key with the specified disk key
*
* tkey: the unobfuscated title key (XORed with BusKey)
* dkey: the unobfuscated disk key (XORed with BusKey)
* 2048 bytes in length (though only 5 bytes are needed, see below)
* pkey: array of pointers to player keys and disk key offsets
*
*
* use the result returned in tkey with css_descramble
*
*/
int css_decrypttitlekey(byte *tkey, byte *dkey, struct playkey **pkey)
{
byte test[5], pretkey[5];
int i = 0;
for (; *pkey; ++pkey, ++i) {
memcpy(pretkey, dkey + (*pkey)->offset, 5);
css_titlekey(pretkey, (*pkey)->key, 0);
memcpy(test, dkey, 5);
css_titlekey(test, pretkey, 0);
if (memcmp(test, pretkey, 5) == 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Using Key %d\n", i+1);
break;
}
}
if (!*pkey) {
fprintf(stderr, "Shit - Need Key %d\n", i+1);
return 0;
}
css_titlekey(tkey, pretkey, 0xff);
return 1;
}
/*
*
* this function does the actual descrambling
*
* sec: encrypted sector (2048 bytes)
* key: decrypted title key obtained from css_decrypttitlekey
*
*/
void css_descramble(byte *sec,byte *key)
{
unsigned int lfsr1_lo,lfsr1_hi,lfsr0,combined;
unsigned char o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
unsigned char *end = sec + 0x800;
#define SALTED(i) (key[i] ^ sec[0x54 + (i)])
lfsr1_lo = SALTED(0) | 0x100;
lfsr1_hi = SALTED(1);
lfsr0 = ((SALTED(4) >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24)&0xff];
sec+=0x80;
combined = 0;
while (sec != end) {
o_lfsr1 = lfsr1_bits0[lfsr1_hi] ^ lfsr1_bits1[lfsr1_lo];
lfsr1_hi = lfsr1_lo>>1;
lfsr1_lo = ((lfsr1_lo&1)>7)^(lfsr0>>10)^(lfsr0>>11)^(lfsr0>>
o_lfsr0 = (((((((lfsr0>>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7)
lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0>= 8;
}
}
Not Surprising (Score:4)
I don't think that this is surprising at all. There's the old saying, "In for a penny, in for a pound." If the MPAA is really serious that DeCSS is a threat to their business, they have to be serious about tracking it down in all of its manifestations. Hell, it was the defense that made that point to start out with- they've basically dared the MPAA to do this very thing by bringing up the issue of the tee shirts in court.
If the defense is going to stand up and say, in essence, that it's vital to stop the tee shirts for the injunction to mean anything, it's pretty silly of them to complain when the plaintiff goes ahead and does exactly that. Personally, I think that this is a great thing for the defense. The plaintiff is left in the rather difficult position of either refusing to take all steps necessary to protect themselves, in which case their seriousness has to be questioned, or of grossly overreacting by going after apparently trivial and silly violators. Of course it looks that way because it's true.
IMO, this is a great demonstration of what is really meant by the statement, "Information wants to be free." That's free as in speech, not as in beer. Once you let information out of your tight control, it's out of anyone's control; you can't prevent its unlimited replication.
You don't know Jack (Score:4)
I'm just waiting to hear this in the courtroom:
You want answers? /. reader? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for 2600 and you curse the MPAA. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that banning the DeCSS code, while tragic, probably makes people money. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, makes me a hell of a lot of money. You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me in your computer system, you need me on that computer system. We use words like copyright, code, royalty. We use these words as the backbone of defending a an ancient business model. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very exorbitant prices that I charge and then questions the manner in which I charge them. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a DVD player and start buying movies at forty bucks a pop. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
I think I'm entitled--
You want answers?
I want the truth!
You can't handle the truth! The truth is that we live in a world that has source code, and that source code has to be guarded by men with guns. Who's going to do it? You? You Mr.
I'm convinced, finally.... (Score:4)
Somebody posted up a wonderful quote from Thomas Jefferson the other day. I'm sorry to say that I can't give credit directly to the person who posted this up, but I think it's absolutely wonderful. As for me, I can't wait to move to Sweden....
Quote follows:
Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
13 Aug. 1813Writings 13:333--34
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction ofman, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
Re:Isn't this like PGP export? (Score:4)
The heart of the issue is the US
Export Regulations, which classifies
cryptographic software as
munitions(!). Thus you need a
license in order to export PGP from
the USA. However, the Export
Regulations only covers software in
electronic form (e.g. on disks, or via
the Internet). PGP 5.0i, on the other
hand, was compiled from source
code that was printed in a book (well, actually 12
books - over 6000 pages!). The books were exported
from the USA in accordance with the US Export
Regulations, and the pages were then scanned and
OCRed to make the source available in electronic
form.
Re:Control (Score:5)
Perhaps you should have read Mr. Katz more carefully.
He never said we didn't have political issues, he just said that most of 'em weren't about concrete issues like food, clothing, and shelter; they're about more esoteric issues, like speech and freedom. And that we don't do anything substantive about them.
How many of us have actually *DONE* something about this issue? Not buying a damn t-shirt, actually showing up at political fundraisers and asking your Congressman what his position is?
Actually writing a letter to your Senator, not just yet another completely ignored form email?
The biggest political stand most geeks take is changing their fucking signature line, or the background color of their web page.
And most of us won't even do that much; how many people are taking this opportunity to actually BUY one of those t-shirts, not just
--
Re:Control (Score:5)
To remind you the PGP code was published as a book, shipped out of the US, scanned and reentered by volunteers. This is the way US export controls were circumvented.
If the T-shirt case is won by MPAA someone may rise the old Fred Zimmerman case again. And this has much wider implications than we can actually imagine.
disclaimer: I bought one of the T-shirts and I am wearing it from time to timeMy two cents of the morning (Score:5)
1 - Spam should be outlawed, while source code is speech.
2 - Music is just bits, and should not afforded any protection, yet again, source code is a constitutional right.
As long as the mentality is so lopsided like that, anyone who looks in to the community will think that everyone is utterly confused.
Re:Control (Score:5)
"Someone [said] if the calvin & Hobbes comics were banned, the only way to prevent that knowledge from being transmitted would be to ban it in all its forms
But what if you had Mssr. Watersons (IIRC) permission? Then why would a 3rd party be allowed to ban it? DeCSS is not copyrighted by the MPAA, but they are trying to control distribution of it.
There are cases where this is allowed:
1) Copyright infringement. But only a copyright holder can prosecute this (IANAL)
2) Obscenity. Um... this stuff turns you on???
BTW: I'm mostly paraphrasing from other posts. I have no thoughts of my own...
Re:T-Shirts can be banned too (Score:5)
I'm not sure if you simply missed the point, or if you're attempting to show that T-shirts are no different than electrons on a screen. In either case: the principal difference is that a T-shirt is something this judge (and ALL the American people, excluding the Amish, who probably don't frequent
T-shirt data hiding (Score:5)
So if one really wants to afford the plaintiffs the protection that they seek, I think I would only be able to wear my shirt in the privacy of my own home and must not go outdoors with it.
What if you wore a jumper over the t-shirt? Is that a form of steganography? Or would that just be considered smuggling? :)
Time to get that DeCSS tattoo ...... (Score:5)
More!!! (Score:5)
"Exhibit A, your honour!"
Should garner even more press coverage...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Much needed clarifications (Score:5)
There is a difference between a subpoena and a summons, the former being what compels testimony from a witness, the latter being what brings a person into a lawsuit as a party.
If we're talking about the New York DeCSS case, which just was tried, then it makes no sense that a new entity could be brought in as a defendant, after trial, especially since the issues surrounding distribution of printed source are quite different than those surrouning compiled object.
On the other hand, this could refer to one of the two other DeCSS cases, the ones in California and Connecticut, respectively, but the article gives no indication.
If anyone does know whether it is a subpoena or a summons, and in which case, please do post, because as a lawyer who has been following the cases, I am having trouble making any logical sense of this.
Re:Isn't this like PGP export? (Score:5)
Also, for what it's worth, export regs on crypto have now significantly been loosened, and it is now legally possible to export "machine readable" crypto code without an explicit license.
Re:Control (Score:5)
There is nothing illegal about writing a free public, source code on T-shirts. Should I be arrested for putting the source code of Quicksort on a T-Shirt. Yes, Quicksort was discovered by C.A.R. Hoare. But by publishing it, Hoare has "given" that knowledge to the public. Just like DeCSS, which as effectively the same status.
Control (Score:5)
Missing story items (Score:5)
Here's a question (Score:5)
Error (Score:5)
-
Re:Control (Score:5)
1) I could print copyrighted works on a t-shirt. It's "free speech" but it's still not legal without the copyright holder's permission
2) If someone were to break an NDA and, say, print Intel's trace diagram for their super-secret next gen processor, I don't think "it's free speech -- see it's on a T-shirt" would fly.
3) Indecency laws (as others have pointed out)
Just because it's "free speech" doesn't make it legal.
This is how the Russians got the bomb (Score:5)
forget one click ordering® - we've got zero click ordering®. www.ridiculopathy.com [ridiculopathy.com]