RE: [dvd-discuss] Comparing DeCSS with legitimate code.

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

Yes. The simple question that the court and the DVDCCA, MPAA etc skirt 
around is "Do I or Do I not own all property rights of the DVD when I 
purchase it?" If so, then the whole idea of circumvention (except for the 
purposes of copyright infringement) is irrelevant. If I don't then 
SOMEBODY better explain to the legal community and the people of the world 
why thousands of years of accepted principles of law and commerce have 
just  been chucked.




Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
05/24/2002 09:15 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Comparing DeCSS with legitimate code.


... and we go full circle into the authority argument.

Wherein lies the authority to access the movie?  If I buy
the DVD, do I not have all of the authority I need to view
it?  If the only system I have to view it on is Linux ...
then how can DeCSS be "circumvention" when it is only being
used to perform an act that is well within my authority.

The authority model of the DVD movie industry has never been
explicitly presented to the courts.  The most we've got from
them is that movies can only be viewed on authorized players.
Well ... that viewing restriction is certainly not printed on 
the DVD package when it's sold to me, so at best it is an ex 
post facto assertion on the part of the MPAA and not a legitimate
access restriction to be considered by the courts.

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Erwin [mailto:jerwin@ponymail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 8:12 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Comparing DeCSS with legitimate code.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, May 23, 2002, at 06:54  PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since there is NO difference between DeCSS and any code whichj 
> > legitimately retrieves information from a DVD player, it 
> cannot be said 
> > that DeCSS breaches the DMCA, as it specifically meets the 
> provisions 
> > of 1201.(2)(A) and 1201.(2).(B)
> >
> >
> There are three systems at issue here,
> 
> DeCSS (and css_cat): system is used to copy plaintext VOBs to disk.
> libcss: system is intended to feed into ac3, mpeg2 decoders for 
> immediate playback
> CSS: the officially licensed spec
> 
> Since plaintext transfer of VOBs to hard disk was not envisoned as a 
> legitimate operation by the inventors of CSS, DeCSS arguably 
> circumvents.
> 
> Assuming that libcss is an clone of officially sanctioned sytems 
> (possibly verifiable, as IIRC, CSS's code has been publicly 
> disclosed, 
> if only by accident), libcss does not circumvent, assuming that keys 
> have been obtained legitimately.
> 
> There are two versions of the CSS algorithm. One uses a known 
> key-- the 
> other uses a brute force method. The latter version is closest to 
> circumvention, as it dispenses  with the toy cryptography-- 
> and uses a 
> digital pickgun instead. The former system masquerades as a 
> "authorized" 
> player, and uses a legitimate key. Is this circumvention? I 
> really don't 
> know.
> 
> Jeremy
>