[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Are CSS licensees stillunderconfidentialityrestrictions?

And in a strange twist... the following is claimed to be a list of all
CSS keys by the refering link


They don't make any internal claims ... though the link to them does.

Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> The language make my head hurt just reading it....Suppose somebody builds
> a complete DVD player REed squeeky clean, doesn't infringe upon any
> patents (you can't patent what something does only how it does it) and
> THEN offered it for sale. Are THEY selling circumvention devices too? You
> buy the DVD and play it on their machine just the same as anybody elses
> machine.
> Let's take this one step further on the RE keys.
> Suppose I had a program that ran through the keys entering them into the
> machine
> Enter valid DVD key-0000001-Bad Key
> Enter valid DVD key-0000002-Bad Key
> etc
> etc
> and several butcher's aprons
> Enter valid DVD key -24532464-Good key
> If this is done with a computer then presumably THAT program becomes a
> circumvention device. But what of your list of REe'd keys. I can punch in
> one of those can't I? Does that file become a circumvention device too
> merely because it holds data? What of my editor that allows me to read
> that file? So I write a shell script to call up the editor on that file
> automatically or do a dialog "what kind of DVD player do you want to be
> today?""natsushita 3424xprt","the key is 4534534535". All of this is
> circumvention right? But what if the key has been revoked for my player?
> Would somebody who makes players that plays cds issued after a key has
> been revoked be creating a circumvention device? I have the authority of
> the copyright holder only to play a DVD on machines made with the
> authority of the copyright holder who has decided that he doesn't want to
> give the the authority to play new DVDs on my old machine. enough
> blathering on......
> What's making my head hurt even more now is wondering "What's a
> circumvention device?"
> "John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@lweb.law.harvard.edu
> 12/07/01 02:47 PM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
>         To:     dvd-discuss@lweb.law.harvard.edu
>         cc:
>         Subject:        [dvd-discuss] Are CSS licensees still under confidentiality restrictions?
> Looking at the DVD-CCA license agreement, the following caught my eye:
> <blockquote>
> (h) Confidentiality Exceptions. The confidentiality restrictions
> contained in Sections 5.2(a), (b) and (c) herein shall not apply to
> information that Licensee can demonstrate: (i) is either Confidential or
> Highly Confidential Information which is or becomes generally known to
> the public through no breach of Licensee's obligations owed to [Blank]
> hereunder and which [Blank] failed to remove from public availability or
> to enjoin such public disclosure within ninety (90) days after the date
> such information is or becomes generally known as set forth above; or
> (ii) is or has been developed by Licensee's employees (whether
> independently or jointly with others) without having access (whether
> directly or through any intermediaries) to any such Confidential
> Information or Highly Confidential Information (or any translation,
> derivation or abstractions of Confidential Information or Highly
> Confidential Information) and without any breach of Licensee's
> obligations to [Blank] , provided that the confidentiality restrictions
> shall continue to apply to DVD Keys provided to Licensee.
> </blockquote>
> (1) Continuing confidentiallity requirements?
> The key phrase is "failed to remove from public availability or to
> enjoin such public disclosure within ninety (90) days after the date
> such information is or becomes generally known".  Does the word "enjoin"
> mean to obtain an injunction of, or to seek an injunction the release of
> the information.  Clearly this information has been available for far
> more than 90 days, and with the recent court decision, it's not going
> away.
> IANAL -- those who are, are the CSS licensee's still under
> confidentiallity constraints.
> (2) doesn't (h) (ii) leave open the door for a licensee to do a clean
> room CSS decoder, or in fact use DeCSS, as long as they don't release
> the keys?  Or is it saying, once a clean room CSS is developed, the
> confidentiality is dead?
> How does this play against Kaplan's argument about DeCSS as bad and CSS
> good simply because of their authorization?  Kaplan referred to the used
> of unauthorized "keys" as key.  Thus if a DeCSS implementation didn't
> include the key's it wouldn't be banned?  So adding a dialog, "please
> enter authorized DVD key" would turn DeCSS from sinner to saint?
> Here's the *really* *wierd* *part*
> <blockquote> (5.2) (b) (ii) (3)
> Notwithstanding any contrary provision, Licensee shall under no
> circumstances disseminate any DVD Keys (as defined in CSS
> Specifications) to more than three (3) Authorized Employees
> </blockquote>
> This would seem to say that even if keys become common knowledge, the
> licensee's are still required to keep them secret.  Is that
> enforceable?  What makes the keys different from the CSS algorithm or
> other DVD-CCA license agreement elements.  If I read on the web an RE'd
> list of all of the DVD player keys (has anyone posted them?) I still
> must honor the secrecy of these keys... hmmm.
> .002