Open Source and DVD's

-zaphod2001: August 6, 2000

As I'm sure you know Linux is the new open source code operating system that's threatening the big giants like Micro$oft, because since the code is freely available to anyone, a consumer no longer has to wait for the next corporate release of a computer program, they can simply write one themselves. Part of the reason why Linux is taking off is because such new applications are being developed for the new OS daily by people all over the world, who then share their new programs with everyone else, free of charge. Much to the consternation of the corporate suits.

Well until now, there was no compatible DVD player for the Linux OS. So a guy in Scandinavia got a DVD player, figured out the encoding bit by bit and created one for the Linux system. Well now the MPAA is all up in arms because they are angry that the exceedingly weak encryption that they put on the players is now freely available to everyone. As a multimedia professional, and have attended several seminars on DVD creation. If you know anything about how its structured, the MPAA has divided the world up into numerical sections in an effort to control profits and product and most importantly, access around the world. For instance, the US is number one (sarcasm alert - of course) Europe is number two, Africa and Russia are much lower (again, big surprise) at number 5, and those pesky commie Chinese are number 6. The idea here is about controlling the markets. If you buy a DVD player in Africa, you cannot play DVD's you buy in America, because they have a different encoding. This just one of their encryption schemes.

Well this little guy caught the big corporate boys by surprise, and took control of his own rights as a viewer, and they're pissed. Problem is, they can't arrest him, he's not an American. So who can they turn on to vent their hostility? Why an alternative internet news organization here in America that has the politically charged name "2600:The Hacker's Quarterly". The MPAA has filed a lawsuit and injunctions against this e-magazine, not because it cracked the code, but because it had the audacity to use it's freedom of speech rights and report about it. How dare they!

I'd like to quote from a recent article in the magazine:

"The kind of honesty you get by having individuals who aren't afraid to express themselves has always been a threat to those who imagine themselves in power. Until recently, the net was the only place where individual opinion actually had a chance. If the media wouldn't tell your story, YOU could become the media and tell the story yourself. The whole world could be your audience.

Every day we get new reports of people being threatened in some way by some huge corporate entity because their opinions and free expression don't sit well. Years ago, this sort of thing would have been laughed at. Today, it's a very different story. Voices are being silenced, criticism is being eliminated. And very unfortunate precedents are being set.

We KNEW the right thing to do last November was to report the story and to publish the programs. And nobody here is ashamed of the fact that part of the reason for doing this was to show support for people who were being bullied. I've never liked bullies, whether they be kids, teachers, parents, cops, governments, or corporate giants. What they were doing to these people was wrong and we felt that our standing up might make a difference.

Well, it did. But not in the way we expected. Suddenly, WE became the problem even though we had nothing to do with the encryption being cracked or even with the initial release of the story.

The sad fact is that we never had a chance in this court. A mere reading of the decision shows this more clearly than anything I could possibly say. "Not surprisingly, 2600: The Hacker Quarterly has included articles on such topics as how to steal an Internet domain name, access other people's e-mail, intercept cellular phone calls, and break into the computer systems at Costco stores and Federal Express." The fact that he would use the phrase "not surprisingly" speaks volumes as to his opinion on our value to society. It is, at best, utter ignorance and only proves beyond any shadow of a doubt how thoroughly Judge Kaplan bought into the MPAA's warped notions of what our magazine is about. We printed an article on weaknesses at Network Solutions that allowed domain names to be stolen. Guess what? They FIXED it as a result of this article and now, domain names, including our own, are not at risk of being stolen, at least, not as much. (Had Kaplan ruled on THAT issue, it would have been illegal for us to tell anyone this and the security holes would still exist.) The same holds true for many of the other security weaknesses we report on. But, as we tried fruitlessly to explain, we exist to report the story, period. Someone may fix the problem because of the story or someone may exploit it. We cannot and will not determine what happens as a result nor will we allow fear of that to make our editorial decisions for us.

The security system ... was compromised the moment the combination was released or leaked to the public, NOT when this fact was reported in a newspaper. This method of blaming the messenger for the message has been used throughout the world to shut down opposition newspapers and imprison people who don't follow the party line. It's troubling to see it applied here. "

Here's the Hacker's Quarterly link: http://www.2600.com

The really interesting part about this is who gets sued, and who doesn't. This little e-magazine gets sued for having the nerve to utilize their rights to freedom of speech and press, and simply reports this story and provides a link to an example of the code, but the Disney Corporation publishes the VERY SAME THING and nothing happens to them. The concept of "fair use" still hasn't penetrated these corporations understanding of the law apparently, and they are managing to actually con judges into buying into their particular limited interpretation solely because they falsely believe that allowing access will cost them profits. This frankly is not the case. During the years of Napster, the music industry made record profits. If allowing the public to use their rights to "fair use" is such a threat, how can they explain that mathematical discrepancy?

The fact is, the imagined corporate "right to pursue unlimited profits" does not outweigh the EXPLICIT First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press guaranteed in the Constitution. Or at least it shouldn't if the judge is acting in good faith and abiding by the law of the land - irregardless of the power of the plaintiff.

------------------

UPDATE

2600 Magazine Won't Seek Supreme Court Review in DVD Case
Activists Vow to Continue Digital Copyright Fight

Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release: July 3, 2002

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) announced today that online and print publisher 2600 Magazine will not seek U.S. Supreme Court review of a court order prohibiting publishing or linking to the DeCSS computer program. This decision ends the publication's two-and-a-half year legal battle over DeCSS, which permits DVD owners to use players that the entertainment industry has not approved.

"We took several steps forward with this case, forcing the courts to recognize that freedom of speech was at stake," explained EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Later cases will provide a better foundation for the Supreme Court to act on the problems created by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)."

Kathleen Sullivan, the Dean of Stanford Law School, argued the case on behalf of 2600 Magazine.

In December 1999, eight major motion picture studios sued 2600 Magazine for publishing an article containing the DeCSS computer software and linking to DeCSS. Norwegian teenager Jon Johansen developed and published the software to great public interest, especially in the Linux community. The New York Times, the San Jose Mercury News, the Village Voice, and several other mainstream news outlets reported on and linked to DeCSS' publication in addition to 2600 Magazine's coverage.

Johansen created DeCSS in an effort to develop an open source software player that would allow people to play their lawfully purchased DVDs on computers running the Linux operating system. But since people may also use the DeCSS program as one step in infringing the copyrights of DVD movies, both the New York District Court and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted the DMCA as banning 2600 Magazine from publishing or linking to DeCSS.

"This case served as a wake-up call to the Internet community," said 2600 Magazine publisher Emmanuel Goldstein. "We have a stronger, more united community now, and we will support future cases."

"EFF and 2600 Magazine will strive to ensure that the public need not sacrifice its side of the copyright bargain to Hollywood's fears of piracy," said EFF Intellectual Property Attorney Robin Gross. Gross added that EFF is considering other DMCA challenges and recently issued a three-year report card detailing the law's faults.

In a related victory for DeCSS proponents, a California Court of Appeals held that the preliminary injunction violated the First Amendment rights of Andrew Bunner, a DeCSS republisher in California. The California DVD case is currently pending before the California Supreme Court.