DeCSS' Continuing Saga

blankmange writes "Newsbytes is carrying a followup on the DeCSS and 2600's court cases: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the First Amendment Project today asked the California Supreme Court to uphold a lower court's decision to permit publication of the source code for DeCSS technology, which circumvents digital copy protection systems." Maybe it's not over yet..."

but its stull sux

... the 2600 case will probably never be won... but how many of the general populace even know what decss is?

its all about the information... the people need to know, or we'll always lose...

Re:but its stull sux

so why should they care if a few people can't copy DVDs?

That is the problem, and by calling it an issue of DVD copying you further the problem. This is not an issue of being able to copy DVDs or to post code. This is an issue of linking to someone that posts code. The next step is to stop someone from talking about DeCSS. Soon, if there is a crime, the TV news cannot report on the crime -- hearing about the crime might enable someone to commit the crime.

Will this kill Slashdot?

#include
typedef unsigned int uint;
char ctb[512]="33733b2663236b763e7e362b6e2e667bd393db06 43034b96de9ed60b4e0e4\
69b57175f82c787cf125a1a528 fca8ac21fd999d1004909419 0d898d001480840913d7d35246\
d2d65743c7c34256c2c64 75dd9dd5044d0d4594dc9cd4054c0 c449559195180c989c11058185\
081c888c011d797df0247 074f92da9ad20f4a0a429f53135b8 6c383cb165e1e568bce8ec61bb\
3f3bba6e3a3ebf6befeb6 abeeaee6fb37773f2267276f723a7 a322f6a2a627fb9f9b1a0e9a9e\
1f0b8f8b0a1e8a8e0f15d 1d5584cd8dc5145c1c5485cc8cc41 5bdfdb5a4edade5f4bcfcb4a5e\
cace4f539793120692961 703878302168286071b7f7bfa2e7a 7eff2bafab2afeaaae2ff";
typedef unsigned char uchar;uint tb0[11]={5,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4};uchar* F=NULL;
uint lf0,lf1,out;void ReadKey(uchar* key){int i;char hst[3]; hst[2]=0;if(F==\
NULL){F=malloc(256);for(i=0;i>2) ^(lf0>>16 ))b=((lf1\
>>12)^(lf1>>20)^(lf1>>21)^(lf1&g t;>24))lf0=(lf0>1)\
|(a>1)|(b>8)+x+y;} void \
CSSdescramble(uchar *sec,uchar *key){uint i;uchar *end=sec+0x800;uchar KEY[5];
for(i=0;i=0;\
i--)key[tb0[i+1]]=k[tb0[i+ 1]]^F[key[tb0[i+1]]]^key [tb0[i]];}void CSStitlekey2\
(uchar *key,uchar *im){uchar k[5];int i;ReadKey(im);for(i=0;i=0;i--)key[tb0[i+1]]=k[tb0[ i+1]]^F[key[tb0[i+1]]]^key\
[tb0[i]];}void CSSdecrypttitlekey(uchar *tkey,uchar *dkey){int i;uchar im1[6];
uchar im2[6]={0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0,0x00};for(i=0;i6; i++)im1[i]=dkey[i];
CSStitlekey1(im1,im2);CSStitl ekey2(tkey,im1);}

Re:Will this kill Slashdot?

you fool!! 7 lines of perl!

#!/usr/bin/local/perl
s''$/=\2048;while(<>){G=2 9;R=142;if((@a=unqT ="C*",_)[20]&48){D=89;_=unqb24,qT,@
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV , b25,_;H=73;O=$b[4]<<9
|256|$b[3];Q=Q>>8^(P=(E=255 )&(Q>>1 2^Q>>4^Q/8^Q))<<17,O=O>>8^(E&amp ; F=(S=O>>14&7^O)
^S*8^S<<6))<<9,_=(map{U=_%16orE^= R^=11 0&(S=(unqT,"\xb\ntd\xbz\x14d")[_/16%8]);E
^=(72,@ z=(64,72,G^=12*(U-2?0:S&17)),H^=_%64?12 : ,@z)[_%8]}(16..271))[_]^((D>>=8
)+=P+(~F&E))for@a [128..$#a]}print+qT,@a}';s/[D -HO-U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eval

Re:Will this kill Slashdot?

Counting lines is a stupid way to measure code complexity. That 7 (6?) lines of perl is equally complex to the longer C code up above. The only reason you got it to fit in less lines was that you used shorter variable names, and more abbreviated shorthand ways of calling the same kinds of routines. To get a better idea of how complex a snippet of code is, don't count the lines, count the number of language tokens used. For example:

while( )
{ G = 29;
R = 142;
...etc...
is no more amount of code than: while(){G=29;R=142;...etc...
They both have the exact same grammar, and use the same number of tokens. They both take just as long to execute, but the more compact version takes more time for a human being to read. What is it about Perl that tends to make its proponets enjoy making write-only code?

Re:Will this kill Slashdot?

I'm sorry, could you phrase your question in the form of a virus ?

*wink wink, nudge nudge*

Wouldn't it be a pity if some wretched soul were to send out a virus whose sole purpose was to leave a copy of DeCSS in every computer it touched? Maybe buried 12 folders deep in some random spot on half the world's Windows boxes...

The MPAA's own servers hosting a pop-up ad with the minimal Perl script showing up every now and then...

Seems to me the "troublemakers" in our midst have been laying down on the job...so let's get going, boyos and girlos!

2600

It is a scary time to be someone like 2600 now.

Mixed speech and content

In the brief, the DVD CCA argued that, "neither DeCSS nor Bunner's posting of it on the Internet is pure speech." Instead, the group said, courts have treated computer code as "nonspeech" or "mixed speech and content."

All you l33t h4x0rz out there think you're entitled to free speech. That's just fine and dandy with the MPAA. Just remember that you're not allowed to put content into your speech without a license.

This is a DISASTER!

Damn, if they make DeCSS legal, my ownership of a T-Shirt with the DeCSS code written on it will be completely meaningless!

Let's hope that the lower court's decision is quashed.

Re:This is a DISASTER!

Get said T Shirt here. [copyleft.net]

It's on tshirts, bumper stickers, why not sigs

Why not put the deCSS program text in your email signature, so everytime you email a friend you 'polute' their spools, servers, backups, with yet another offending copy.

Story not about 2600

This story is about the case that's in California, and getting batted back and forth among California state courts. No trial has happened yet; they're still arguing over preliminary injunctions and jurisdiction.

The 2600 case was in federal court in New York. They lost the trial, and were also shot down by the federal appeals court.

It definitely isn't over...

At least not until a third-party DVD player becomes available for Linux for free (yeah right), although this will only put the real problem here on hold.

security? we don' need no stinkin' security!

things are only getting worse...

DeCSS is only going to come under more and more attack. Senator Tom Daschel was already quoted as saying that he would be "behind legislation agaainst any DeCSS propaganda or code whatseover". This apparently was stated after it was rumoured that hos own son had brought the DeCSS song on MP3 to school, where it was confiscated by his teacher. (http://routers.com).

The irony in this is funny, but it is plain to see that this trend will just keep continuing.

Excellent point

The article sayth:

"[This] is not an interest that is 'more fundamental' than the First Amendment right to freedom of speech or even on equal footing with the national security interests or other vital governmental interests that have previously been found insufficient to justify a prior restraint."

Seriously, since when did the ??AA's become more powerful or important than national security? Who put them on their pedestal? Who died and gave them the monarchy?

Just shows you where this country's priorities are. Trading freedom for security is bad enough. Trading freedom for entertainment is disgusting.

proof that DMCA is ambiguous....

in NY, 2600 was told to take down DeCSS.

in CA, Brunner was told he was allowed to keep it up.

Anyone catch that? Two similar if not identical cases have different rulings based on the same law.

Questions --
Have there been other sets of cases that have had the same law interpreted in two different directions? What was the outcome? Are such laws considered ambiguous and thus in need of clarification? Who makes taht decision?

Re:proof that DMCA is ambiguous....

Questions --
Have there been other sets of cases that have had the same law interpreted in two different directions? What was the outcome? Are such laws considered ambiguous and thus in need of clarification? Who makes taht decision?

This is generally one of the situations in which the Supreme Court will step in, that is, if two states rule differently on a federal law, it is up to no one but the Supreme Court to sort it out.

The Supreme Court only accepts a small percentage of the cases they are asked to hear, but then again generally the states follow each other's precident.

Not stolen secret!

"Historically, the dissemination of stolen trade secrets has not been protected by the First Amendment," the DVD CCA wrote in its brief. It said the injunction, "was not aimed at restricting speech, but was intended solely to protect against the evisceration of trade secrets that are the motion picture industry's critical means of defense against widespread digital pirating of its valuable copyrighted works."

This secret was not stolen, it was reverse-engineered! Their argument is bullsh**.

Abe had it right...

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.... Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-Abraham Lincoln

No matter how they twist it, it is speech.

"Historically, the dissemination of stolen trade secrets has not been protected by the First Amendment," the DVD CCA wrote in its brief."

This "trade secret" was NOT stolen. No one hacked into anybody's computer or broke into anyone's office to steal anything. The encryption technique was reverse engineered which IS legal. Discussing the reverse engineering process and ones findings with others IS legal and protected by the first amendment.

Re:Great thought...maybe the real fight is elsewhe

How can it be a trade secret if every DVD manufacturer knows it??

It's a trade secret of an organization called the "DVD Copy Control Association" - or, the DVDCCA.

They license the trade secret to all of the player manufacturers, and in return, the player manufacturers sign a contract that, among other things, forbids them from building DVD players with unencrypted digital outputs, and requires them to include Macrovision distortion in the analog output signal. The contract also forbids the disclosure of the CSS algorithm.

The result is that, prior to DeCSS, if you wanted to manufacture DVD players, you needed to sign the contract and agree to the terms in order to obtain the necessary technology to decode DVDs.

Now, the CSS algorithm is cracked.

The danger that the industry is facing is this. If CSS is deemed, by the courts, to be a legitimately reverse-engineered trade secret, then the CSS decoding process would enter the public domain. If that were to happen, it would clear the way for the manufacture of DVDs without having to obey the restrictions of the CSS contract.

In other words, it would allow companies to start manufacturing DVD players with such desirable features as no Macrovision, and digital MPEG outputs. But it wouldn't allow all companies to do so ...

... only those companies that had not signed a contract with the DVDCAA. In other words, the entire current player industry would be shut out -- they would be still required, by their DVDCCA contracts, to install Macrovision, and not offer digital outputs. This would be a disaster for the current crop of player manufacturers.

There's a reason that they are fighting so hard to force CSS into the category of "stolen trade secret" -- by sheer force of will, apparently. If DeCSS were to be ruled a stolen trade secret, then the courts would prevent anyone else from making commercial use of the algorithm.

This would be an incredible win for the movie industry -- they would receive what would be in effect a perpetual patent -- the right to exclude others from employing a process.

Note that they are fighting this battle on different fronts -- the DMCA case is to try and outlaw the dissemination of the algorithm. The Trade Secret case is to try and outlaw the implementation of the algorithm. They are fighting tooth and nail to control not the right to manufacture DVD players, but the right to dictate what features may and may not be included in DVD players.

Just in case the original gets slashdotted...

Go here: Grab your own text file [zoy.org]

Idea for ThinkGeek...

Take a Sharpie marker pen and print one of the CSS descramblers [cmu.edu] on it. Hey, now you've got a convenient 2-in-1 DCMA infringement device. Somebody get the ThinkGeek product guys on the phone...

I don't condone piracy...

I understand why the MPAA wants to protect its intellectual property, but they need to fight piracy by either making the factory-made products worth buying or prosecute those individuals who pirate them. I want to be able to rip a VOB and play it back on my laptop without having to break the law in the process. I think that the MPAA would rather strip millions of legitimate users of their rights to fair use, rather than spend the money to fight a few individuals who are massively distributing illegal copies of a copyrighted product.

Correct me if I'm wrong..

"No stolen trade secret can survive if the courts are powerless to enjoin its widespread disclosure," the brief said.

Hasn't DeCSS already experience wide spread disclosure. This is kind of like closing the barn door after the horse has left the building.

It is the RIAA/MPAA that are becoming powerless...

The DVDCCA have a point

If you have a trade secret, and someone posts it to, e.g., Slashdot, that does not give every /. reader the right to republish it on their personal websites.

Now, if you have 400 trade secrets, and you burn them all onto a shiny metal disk, and you sell 20 million copies of that disk, and someone works out from one of those disks what the secrets are, your case is a lot weaker. Independent discovery is, AFAIK, a defense against trade secret violations (and copyright, too, but not patents or trademarks).

Funny Storry

So this guy says to me "#!/usr/bin/perl
# 472-byte qrpff, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz
# MPEG 2 PS VOB file -> descrambled output on stdout.
# usage: perl -I :::: qrpff
# where k1..k5 are the title key bytes in least to most-significant order

s''$/=\2048;while(){G=29;R=142;if((@a=unqT="C*", _) [20]_=unqb24,qT,@
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$Q=unqV,qb25,_ ; =73;O=$b[4]>8^(P=(E=255)>12^Q>>4^Q/8^Q ))>8^(E>14=8
)+=P+(~Fs/[D-HO-U_]/\$$s/q/pack+/g;e val
".

So of course I punched him.

wait a minute

First Amendment Project? FAP? Organizations really need to check their acronyms when they pick names.

Let's take it to the street

The CBDTPA is actually very good for the movement to bring about the death of legislation like the DMCA. I saw a review of the CBDTPA in a roanoke paper about 2 weeks ago and it was really cool seeing a common newspaper make a big feature in its op-ed section about the CBDTPA. People trust newspapers a lot more than they trust websites. Newspapers cost money to produce (so do websites), but websites don't in the eyes of John Q. Citizen. Anyone can make a website is the general view, even though hosting a major website requires an assload of money to pay for bandwidth, high end equipment and a full time staff. Using the Internet to propagandize is not as easy as people think.

What we need are Win32 and OS X open source or free as in beer cd/dvd rippers that make defeating copy restrictions as easy as installing a new plugin. We need to force the issue by making the cartels so desparate they call for the complete destruction of individual property rights as they pertain to IP. The CBDTPA wasn't quite that, we need to get them so desparate that they propose something that makes it a felony to own a computer that can copy music and movies. We need to make John Q. Citizen so scared of their proposals that he says, "listen asshole, you have two choices, protect my rights or their bottom line. You know where I'm voting now!!" to their representatives out of anger and sheer rage. Essentially we need to take demagoguery to a new level, if you support these industries you are supporting your child's inevitable felony prison sentence for making a custom workout mix cd.

What we can do are the following

1. Make easily read and intepretted brochures for distribution at elections that say in plain English what copyright laws do and would do if enacted.
2. Tell people where their representatives really stand. In those brochures show how they voted and again, say in plain English what the nastier parts of the law really do
3. Use as many controversial quotes by the RIAA and MPAA's executives whenever possible. Take away the image that they are hard working capitalists, and help make them look like lobbyists for corporate welfare babies.
4. Make these companies look like they have complete and utter contempt (which admittedly a lot of them actually do) for their customers not just as property owners, but as human beings. Make them look like they could give a damn less about individual rights and that they will not stop trying to use the government to violently crush competition until they themselves are crushed by either the government or (preferably) the marketplace.
5. Use industry statistics to show that most artists never get compensated anyway and show that copying cannot be stealing because it creates new property
6. and finally, tell the people that they can make a difference. They can buy music from local bands, buy cds used so they aren't funding their oppressors, allow others to access their mp3s if they have broadband.

We must make these people look like absolute monsters to the public. We must find ways to associate RIAA/MPAA with the same feelings that most people reserve for Fascists and Communists. The average person must start looking at it from this perspective, "he is not advocating compensating people for their work, he is advocating the annihilation of my property rights." Once we have achieved that, we can effectively dismantle modern copywrong law and get it back to being constitutional copyright law.

Might as well put some content in this article

For those of you who actually care about the article:

The article didn't mention the DMCA. They are trying to protect DeCSS as a 'trade secret.' Now, as I understand trade secret law, it is no longer a trade secret once it has been reverse engineered. So where do they get off making that claim?

Why illegal?

What's the difference between something that allows you to copy a DVD from a Xerox machine? Why isn't that illegal? A friend of mine sent me a couple of DVD's for Christmas. The well intentioned friend didn't realize that European DVD's don't play in the US (he's from the UK). Here I am with two DVDs I can't do a thing with. Or, I can rip it and make it work so I can watch it. Whatever I do to watch it would be considered illegal (hacking the region code in the DVD player, removing the region code from the DVD, converting the DVD to a format I can play some place else, etc.) All this for something I own. There should be a way to file a class action law suit against the movie industry for causing us so much grief! They assume everyone is a criminal.

Obligatory Mirror

It has always been up.
Heh. http://joshua.raleigh.nc.us/DeCSS/ [raleigh.nc.us]

I'm curious

In court you need evidence to prove your case, you need hard solid fact proving your case. I assume they entered into evidence the actual code in question here as well, both in written (as to show how the 'original' looks) and as a copy of where it was published (t-shirts, books, internet and later also as a tatoo).

Isn't all of this going to the public records later? I'm sure there's a flaw in my thought somewhere but once it enters the legal system it's there to be poked and made fun of for every citizen, no?

Code-is-speech debate

Has there ever been a definitive legal ruling at high levels on this debate? I'm still forming my opinions on this one. If anyone knows of a legal judgement summary on this subject online, I'd be grateful for a link. I'd like to see the pro and con opinions on this one from you guys, too.

"Stolen" trade secret

I wasn't aware that a trade secret had been "Stolen". I thought DeCSS was a clean room reverse engineering job. Even if not, then the use of the DMCA is aimed at quashing such reverse engineering and treating it as trade secrets.

If I were to post a photo of the insides of my car's engine on the web, would I be violating the manufacturer's trade secrets? Car manufactures go out an buy competitors cars just to take them apart and see how they work. Why is software so magically different?

The most important part?

From the article:
In addition, the court found that DeCSS is "pure speech" for the purposes of First Amendment protection.

Say what you will about CA, our courts get it! This is from the CA State Appeals Court Ruling.

a different look

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the First Amendment Project today asked the California Supreme Court to uphold a lower court's decision to permit publication of the source code for DeCSS technology, which circumvents digital copy protection systems."

Perhaps it should read...

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the First Amendment Project today asked the California Supreme Court to uphold a lower court's decision to permit publication of the source code for DeCSS technology, which informs technically capable people how DVDs are encrypted."

Clarification... DeCSS by itself does not circumvent copy protection!!! Only the *abuse* of DeCSS during application does.

Technically inept people shouldn't be making decisions about technology they don't understand. For example, would I, a computer programmer, make critical decisions about launching the space shuttle? Probably not.

Go 2600 and stick it to 'em!

mpaa = cool

you know what's really cool about the mpaa? they control the movie industry pretty much by their rating system, yet none of the mpaa "judges" are publically elected into the position, or placed into "office" by anyone in the movie industry. and it is not required that these people's names be publicly none. how nice is that? faceless, nameless morality judges censor the entire u.s. movie industry. how american.

I can't wait...

...until the DVD CCA realizes that they will piss off the software industry, severely, if they succeed in their current line of litigation. If code is speech, then it can be copyrighted but the 1st Amendment applies; if code isn't speech, then the 1st Amendment doesn't apply but it can't be copyrighted. Ergo, if the DVD CCA wins, the U.S. government will have to stop prosecuting for those who infringe the "copyright" of software. You think Microsoft is pissed at Linux? Wait until Disney tries to hack their balls off! :-P

What would happen if...

2600 just provided a framed part of their site where the decss utility could be downloaded from? They don't actually host the utility, the links, nor the actual code. Every week or so another hosted site in a different country has a mirror of both the links and/or the utilities themselves. This absolves 2600 of linking themselves. The point is moot now, I suppose, but the ramifications of their case are mind-bogglingly easy to surmount.

The real problem.

The real problem, I think, lies with the inability of business to reconcile itself with an information economy. Groups like the MPAA (and Unisys, and RSA Data Sec.) want to provide information as a product. To do so, they have to control the availability of this 'product' to the end user.

In every other part of the Universe, it is the specific product which is patented. If you make a carbon copy of a Honda Accord, then you'll get sued. If you make a vehicle with four wheels, four doors and an engine, you won't. In academia, if you make a discovery, then some time later another person claims to have made the same discovery, that person -- except in rare cases -- you will be laughed out of town, but reproducing the same result via independent work is okay.

So, reproducing the DeCSS algorithm via independent work is okay via logical extension. As for breaking copyright protection, this is really governed by two laws: the so called "Betamax decision" from which the fair-use concept is derived, and by the DMCA. Although I don't know much about the DMCA, fair-use says that any particular consumer of media content can copy it limitlessly for backup, personal storage, alternate viewing, or whatever. Ripping a DVD to DIVX is perfectly legal, as long as you don't redistribute it and merely use it for personal viewing.

Reverse Engineering is Legal in California

I don't have a citation for you, but I have read the california statute that specifically states that reverse engineering is legal.

You might be suprised to hear that. But consider what the point of the structure of patents is set up for - if you invent something, and you disclose your invention to the patent office, with instructions clear enough that someone "skilled in the art" can reproduce your invention, then you can be granted a patent.

Part of the idea is that once the patent expires, it goes into the public domain, along with explicit instructions for how to make your invention. Thus society as a whole ultimately benefits from the granting of a temporary monopoly.

Trade secrets are not legally protected monopolies, specifically because they don't provide the public benefit of putting the invention into the public domain.

What protection trade secrets have is a matter of keeping people honest. Someone who has signed a nondisclosure agreement is not allowed to disclose the invention, you can't steal it or bribe someone who knows it or whatever.

But reverse engineering is specifically allowed by california state law, and the law of all the other states as far as I know, in part because it provides a reason for inventors to patent stuff rather than keeping it secret - because that's the only way they can be granted a legal monopoly, and there is no protection from reverse engineering.

At least there wasn't before the DMCA, and I would argue the constitution makes the DMCA illegal, because it only allows for monopolies to be granted by the patent system. Copyrights are a form of monopoly too, but the constitution doesn't provide legal ground for maintaining copyrights by forbidding devices that can copy, it only forbids actually making copies without permission.

Rule 1, Page 1 of "Elements of Style"

"Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's." So, the title should say "DeCSS's", not "DeCSS'".

Also, unless this is about a misplaced variable declaration, it should probably be in the "hanging-in-the-balance" department.

Re:DeCSS Should be Free to Distribute.

The funny part about this (as I understand it) is that its entirely unecessary to have DeCSS to copy a DVD. DeCSS was only to play the dvd.

Lord of the Primes???

So If I use this number to decrypt and
watch lord of the rings, we now get this:

"One Prime to strip them all, One Prime to free them, One Prime to bring them all and on my OS see them."

Re:FIRST ILLEGAL POST

Some idiots don't know the reason behind this other DECSS program. If so many MPAA droids are pouring over web-sites trying to decide where to launch their next legal salvo at, it kind of gets interesting when there is a totally 100% legal program also called DECSS out there as well.

Re:FIRST ILLEGAL POST

So.... where is the licence mentioned? Weren't you supposed to distribute it with the post? This post is more illegal than you even thought!