1 Apr
2002
1 Apr
'02
12:44 p.m.
This idiodic bill bill sounds like a sure fire way to
kill the electronics industry in the US. I wonder who Fritz
Hollings really works for, the Taliban? In any event, it
will NEVER happen in the US, we already smuggle in huge
quantities of drugs, gun s, booze, parrots and everything
else that the US government attempts to ban so I guess we may
have to add computers to the list next.
Doc's response seems to be typical- it sounds so outrageous
that there's no way it could happen.
However, I nonetheless urge everyone to write their U.S.
representative and Senator and inform them that this and
any similar legislation is unacceptable to you. In order
to keep your message short, I suggest that you not elucidate
the many reasons why it's bad, but instead offer to do so
in a follow-up correspondance.
Regards,
-doug q
1 Apr
1 Apr
1:52 p.m.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Douglas H. Quebbeman wrote:
Doc's response seems to be typical- it sounds so
outrageous
that there's no way it could happen.
Excuse me? My response was that if we don't mobilize en masse, and
quickly, it _will_ happen.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act was no less ridiculous, and is now
Federal law. In the many times that law has been invoked, not one case
has involved the mass distribution pirates its proponents claimed to
target. Most have been people like Dmitri Slyarov, who simply dared to
speak out, and to demonstrate that ownership of an idea is moot.
The Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act - UCITA bill - is
even more ludicrous, and is now law in two states. A roaring
grass-roots campaign against UCITA was credited with stopping it in
Texas.
All three bills, proposed or passed, have in common that they are
unenforceable, that they target and penalize the consumer in favor of
specialized corporate interests, that they are blatantly
unconstitutional in spirit if not in their letters, and that most of
their opponents do not take them seriously enough to act.
The other thing these bills all have in common is that the special
interest groups who buy their introduction into our legislative system
will continue to pay for their reintroduction until their puppets are
censured in a way that matters. In cash, and in criminal prosecution.
Douglas, I expect that the mis-attribution was a benign mistake, so I
want to make it clear that I'm not jumping down your throat. But I WILL
NOT be misunderstood in this.
The very possibility of a travesty like the CBDTPA becoming the law of
the land is my worst nightmare come to life.
It has nothing to do with my computers, my music recordings, or
my movies.
It has everything to do with the idea that any coalition with enough
cash and lawyers can today buy any oppression of the people that they
desire, with impunity, and without any need to even disguise their
actions.
The contemplation of that truth literally moves me to tears, and to a
despair that borders on rage.
Doc
7:40 p.m.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act was no less
ridiculous, and is now
Federal law. In the many times that law has been invoked, not one case
has involved the mass distribution pirates its proponents claimed to
target.
Wrong. 4500+ copies is "mass distribution."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/03/29/video-bootleg.htm
In any event, the DMCA was intended to address not only those who distribute copies, but
those who provide "circumvention devices"
that enable others to engage in mass distribution. Doesn't it make as much sense to
go after those involved in "mass distribution"
of the circumvention device, such as DeCSS?
7:45 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Wayne M. Smith once stated:
While DeCSS is a circumvention device, a pirate does *not* need DeCSS to
copy a DVD. DeCSS was created to allow someone the ability to *view* DVDs
the author *already owned.* Now, the author wanted to view these on a
device not blessed with the proper licensing and there in is the crux of the
matter. When I buy a DVD, what, exactly, am I getting?
-spc (I mean, besides shafted by Hollywood?)
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act was no less
ridiculous, and is now
Federal law. In the many times that law has been invoked, not one case
has involved the mass distribution pirates its proponents claimed to
target.
Wrong. 4500+ copies is "mass distribution."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/03/29/video-bootleg.htm
In any event, the DMCA was intended to address not only those who distribute copies, but
those who provide "circumvention devices"
that enable others to engage in mass distribution. Doesn't it make as much sense to
go after those involved in "mass distribution"
of the circumvention device, such as DeCSS? 
7:50 p.m.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Wayne M. Smith wrote:
Show me one instance in how DeCSS was used to copy movies in full DVD
digital quality, like the MPAA says. Never mind that you could do a
straight binary copy of the DVD without any decryption to re-distribute
it.
Now, ask how many people use DeCSS-based code to view DVD's becuase no
company wants to feed the MPAA money to sell a DVD player for their OS
(eg. Linux)
DeCSS is not intended for making copies, it's for guaranteeing fair-use
rights guaranteed by US Copyright law.
-- Pat
The Digital
Millenium Copyright Act was no less ridiculous, and is now
Federal law. In the many times that law has been invoked, not one case
has involved the mass distribution pirates its proponents claimed to
target.
Wrong. 4500+ copies is "mass distribution."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/03/29/video-bootleg.htm
In any event, the DMCA was intended to address not only those who distribute copies, but
those who provide "circumvention devices"
that enable others to engage in mass distribution. Doesn't it make as much sense to
go after those involved in "mass distribution"
of the circumvention device, such as DeCSS?
8:19 p.m.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Wayne M. Smith wrote:
Cool. I missed hearing about that.
The Digital
Millenium Copyright Act was no less ridiculous, and is now
Federal law. In the many times that law has been invoked, not one case
has involved the mass distribution pirates its proponents claimed to
target.
Wrong. 4500+ copies is "mass distribution."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/03/29/video-bootleg.htm In any event, the DMCA was intended to address not
only those who distribute copies, but those who provide "circumvention devices"
that enable others to engage in mass distribution. Doesn't it make as much sense to
go after those involved in "mass distribution"
of the circumvention device, such as DeCSS?
DeCSS was a huge red herring. It was originally developed to _watch_
DVD movies, not _copy_ them. The DMCA proponents raised bloody hell
about people downloading full-length DVDs to their computers and wathing
them free. Get a grip. At the time - 1998 - the price of disk storage
was more than a legal DVD, and unless you had a seriously wicked box,
the quality sucked. Besides, even at cable-modem speeds, it takes a
minute or three to download 5-1/2 _gigabytes_ of movie.
I'm not a proponent of piracy. I do think that mass distribution
should be a criminal offense. But we already have laws for that. DMCA,
UCITA, and this new abortion all go way too far.
Doc
9:26 p.m.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Wayne M. Smith wrote:
Cool. I missed hearing about that.
> In any event, the DMCA was intended to address not only those who distribute copies,
but those who provide "circumvention
devices"
The
Digital Millenium Copyright Act was no less ridiculous, and is now
Federal law. In the many times that law has been invoked, not one case
has involved the mass distribution pirates its proponents claimed to
target.
Wrong. 4500+ copies is "mass distribution."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/03/29/video-bootleg.htm > that enable others to engage in mass
distribution. Doesn't it make as much sense to go after those involved in "mass
distribution"
of the
circumvention device, such as DeCSS?
DeCSS was a huge red herring. It was originally developed to _watch_
DVD movies, not _copy_ them. 
2 Apr
2 Apr
1:03 a.m.
And thusly Wayne M. Smith spake:
No no no! The source for DeCSS was released and a Windows executable was made
DeCSS was a huge red herring. It was originally developed to _watch_
DVD movies, not _copy_ them.
The reason why something is developed is really not that relevant to how it may
ultimately be used -- we (the US) build weapons of
mass destruction as a deterrent to keep the peace, but they're clearly capable of
great evil. If you're referring to the that DeCSS
was developed because there was no Linux DVD player, this story is apocryphal. DeCSS is
a Windows-only executable file; there never
was a Linux version, and the claim that it was developed as a Windows file because Linux
didin't support the DVD file structure is
nonsense. Moreover, if you need the windows OS to decrypt a DVD, then you already have a
computer that can play the DVD.
from that.... T-shirts have even been made with the
source code printed on
them.
Cheers,
Bryan
2:46 p.m.
--- Bryan Pope <bpope(a)wordstock.com> wrote:
And thusly Wayne M. Smith spake:
not that relevant to how it may
ultimately be used
-- we (the US) build weapons of
No no no! The source for DeCSS was released and a
Windows executable was made
from that.... T-shirts have even been made with the
source code printed on
them.
Cheers,
Bryan
I guess I should have been a bit clearer. The DeCSS
lawsuit was not about posting source code, but about
posting a Windows executable version which was known
as "DeCSS." As stated by 2600 Enterprises in its
post-hearing brief: "Jon Johansen testified that . .
. he wrote the program for Windows rather than for
Linux in order to test it properly because Linux did
not then support the UDF file system used on DVDs."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> DeCSS was a huge red herring. It was
originally developed to _watch_
DVD
movies, not _copy_ them.
The reason why something is developed is really mass destruction as a deterrent to keep the
peace,
but they're clearly capable of great evil. If
you're referring to the that DeCSS
was developed because there was no Linux DVD
player, this story is apocryphal. DeCSS is a
Windows-only executable file; there never
was a Linux version, and the claim that it was
developed as a Windows file because Linux didin't
support the DVD file structure is
nonsense. Moreover, if you need the windows OS
to
decrypt a DVD, then you already have a computer that
can play the DVD.
2:24 a.m.
At 12:26 AM 4/2/02 -0800, you wrote:
If you're referring to the that DeCSS
was developed because there was no Linux DVD player, this story is
apocryphal.
DeCSS is a Windows-only executable file; there never
was a Linux version, and the claim that it was
developed as a Windows file
because Linux didin't support the DVD file structure
is
nonsense. Moreover, if you need the windows OS to
decrypt a DVD, then you
already have a computer that can play the DVD.
Funny. I first came across decss as source for Linux. It wasn't until
later that it was ported to Winblows.
Carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
3:32 a.m.
Same here. It was developed for Linux first.
- Matt
P.S. - On a side note, the following web site has some neat references to
alternative expressions of DeCSS:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/
Funny. I first came across decss as source for Linux.
It wasn't until
later that it was ported to Winblows.
Carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
Matthew Sell
Programmer
On Time Support, Inc.
www.ontimesupport.com
(281) 296-6066
Join the Metrology Software discussion group METLIST!
http://www.ontimesupport.com/subscribe_t&c.htmlhtml.
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
Many thanks for this tagline to a fellow RGVAC'er...
3:21 a.m.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Wayne M. Smith wrote:
apocryphal. DeCSS is a Windows-only executable file; there never
was a Linux version, and the claim that it was developed as a Windows
Really?? While they don't have the same physical name as the 'Windows
Version', there's a lot of Linux 'DeCSS versions' out there. Just search
google for "DeCSS" and "Linux".
-- Pat
7:39 a.m.
New subject: DeCSS; Was Re: The Future End of Classic Computing
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Wayne M. Smith wrote:
A) I never mentioned Linux in conjunction with DeCSS
B) Whose version of that story are you reading? DeCSS was Open
Source. I've NEVER seen a Windows version, I've SEEN the source
code, and I've SEEN it run on Linux. Not owning a DVD drive,
I've never needed it myself. I gave away my DeCSS T-shirt,
which has the DeCSS source printed on it under a Freedom Of
Speech banner.
C) Your weapons analogy still fails. Neither DeCSS nor anything like
it was ever necessary to duplicate DVD disks. Its *function*,
as well as its purpose, is the decoding of the header and volume
label info of a DVD-ROM, and the decryption and output of the
.vob file to stdout. That's _all_. You *could* use it to copy
a DVD to disk in unencrypted form, but that would be useless in
a mass-distribution piracy operation.
This thread has gone way, way afield of anything on-topic, so I
suggest, if we're going to pursue it, that we pick a newsgroup to post
in. Your call.
Doc
DeCSS was a
huge red herring. It was originally developed to _watch_
DVD movies, not _copy_ them.
The reason why something is developed is really not that relevant to how it may
ultimately be used -- we (the US) build weapons of
mass destruction as a deterrent to keep the peace, but they're clearly capable of
great evil. If you're referring to the that DeCSS
was developed because there was no Linux DVD player, this story is apocryphal. DeCSS is
a Windows-only executable file; there never
was a Linux version, and the claim that it was developed as a Windows file because Linux
didin't support the DVD file structure is
nonsense. Moreover, if you need the windows OS to decrypt a DVD, then you already have a
computer that can play the DVD. 
12:26 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1601 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020403/05f06217/at…
3 Apr
3 Apr
11:17 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 431 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020403/987daadc/at…
2 Apr
2 Apr
8:03 p.m.
> In any event, the DMCA was intended to address
not only those who distribute copies, but those who provide "circumvention
devices"
> that enable others to engage in mass
distribution. Doesn't it make as much sense to go after those involved in "mass
distribution"
of the
circumvention device, such as DeCSS?
No it most certainly does not!
Owning the equipment to comit a crime (especially if that equipment has
legitimate uses) is not (or at least should not) be equivalent to
comitting that crime.
3 Apr
3 Apr
3:49 a.m.
Wayne M. Smith said:
Then we should ban knife stores, gun shops, etc...hell, anything that sells or
distributes anything of any kind. you know, any object can be used to commit
a crime. It is a logical fallacy to draw an arbitrary line between
distributing a computer program or source code that could be used to commit a
crime and distributing a material object that can be used to commit a crime.
There is no philosophical distinction between the two, even if there is a
literal distinction. Once it becomes OK to ban the distribution of DeCSS or
like computer programs, how much farther do you need to go to ban distribution
of firearms? from there to knives? Since the legal precedent is in place that
it's ok to ban the distribution of ANYTHING (or, equally important, any IDEA)
because it MIGHT be used to commit a crime, we are on a very slippery slope
and something needs to be done about it NOW before we fall off the bottom.
- Dan Wright
(dtwright(a)uiuc.edu)
(http://www.uiuc.edu/~dtwright)
-] ------------------------------ [-] -------------------------------- [-
``Weave a circle round him thrice, / And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honeydew hath fed, / and drunk the milk of Paradise.''
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Kubla Khan
No it most
certainly does not!
Owning the equipment to comit a crime (especially if that equipment has
legitimate uses) is not (or at least should not) be equivalent to
comitting that crime.
I don't diagree with you, but read again what I said --
"distribution" not "ownership." 
2 Apr
2 Apr
11:27 p.m.
New subject: By now OT: Re: The Future End of Classic Computing
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Dan Wright wrote:
Then we should ban knife stores, gun shops,
etc...hell, anything that
sells or distributes anything of any kind. you know, any object can be
used to commit a crime. It is a logical fallacy to draw an arbitrary
line between distributing a computer program or source code that could
be used to commit a crime and distributing a material object that can be
used to commit a crime. There is no philosophical distinction between
the two, even if there is a literal distinction. Once it becomes OK to
ban the distribution of DeCSS or like computer programs, how much
farther do you need to go to ban distribution of firearms? from there to
knives? Since the legal precedent is in place that it's ok to ban the
distribution of ANYTHING (or, equally important, any IDEA) because it
MIGHT be used to commit a crime, we are on a very slippery slope and
something needs to be done about it NOW before we fall off the bottom.
I'm just waiting for the end, when all the bad decisions and worthless
policy being promulgated by our gubment leads to the complete collapse of
our civilization. Then, complete anarchy will reign and we'll be able to
do whatever the hell we please.
And the only thing the record execs will be able to do is standby and
watch. Ha ha.
In the meantime, I'll continue to use Morpheus (or whatever replaces it)
and buy used CDs.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
3 Apr
3 Apr
11:22 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1707 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020403/e2eb7e26/at…
1:18 p.m.
To go back to the hammer for a moment, if I go out and
buy a hammer and
bash somebody's head in with it, then I am guilty of murder. The company
that made the hammer, and the shop that sold it to me, are not. And
that's how it should be.
Ah, but the lawyers have removed almost all signs of true
personal responsibility from society. Now everyone's the victim out
to make a buck or two. And yes, I realize that there are legitimate
lawsuits for real negligence out there as well.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
3:50 a.m.
Tony Duell said:
And as for restricting knowledge that could be used to commit crimes,
well, you'd better remove the brains of most of the population right now...
Has everyone read _1984_? I just finished it and it's quite good ;) anyway,
very instructive, and frightening, on this point...
- Dan Wright
(dtwright(a)uiuc.edu)
(http://www.uiuc.edu/~dtwright)
-] ------------------------------ [-] -------------------------------- [-
``Weave a circle round him thrice, / And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honeydew hath fed, / and drunk the milk of Paradise.''
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Kubla Khan
4:10 a.m.
And thusly Dan Wright spake:
Tony Duell said:
Ooooh.... And what about Farenheit 451?! This was required reading at my
high school. Ray Bradbury was just honored with some award a few days ago.
Cheers,
Bryan
And as for restricting knowledge that could be used to commit crimes,
well, you'd better remove the brains of most of the population right now...
Has everyone read _1984_? I just finished it and it's quite good ;) anyway,
very instructive, and frightening, on this point...
5:24 a.m.
> And as for restricting knowledge that could be
used to commit crimes,
> well, you'd better remove the brains of most of the population right
now...
Has everyone read _1984_? I just finished it and
it's quite good ;)
anyway,
very instructive, and frightening, on this point...
Big ideas... here's my $0.02, anyway:
Apparently the idea of thoughtcrime is central to the upcoming
SKG/Speilberg SF film "Minority Report", which I just heard
about.
- - -
While the movie may be independent this, there are areas of
study in social philosophy which actively seek to protect free
_informed_ choice.
Whenever you hear "It's what the people want", beware, because
somebody is smelling a weakness and wants to make a Billion
off of it. Not calling it a weakness is the evil in it. Oh yeah, there
are times where the masses are served for their better good,
but it may be something like less that 50% of the time.
(greedy self interest note: anybody know how I can keep a
copy of the MR trailer on my PC for repeated viewing?)
John A.
7:37 a.m.
Quothe Dan Wright, from writings of Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 08:50:43AM -0600:
Tony Duell said:
>
> And as for restricting knowledge that could be used to commit crimes,
> well, you'd better remove the brains of most of the population right now...
Hasn't that already been done? Based upon everyday observations,
something similar appears to have happened to a large percentage of
the population, alas. "Education" appears to be responsible. How's
that for doublespeak?
Has everyone read _1984_? I just finished it and
it's quite good ;) anyway,
very instructive, and frightening, on this point...
The instructor that I had for English 102 required the class to read
that Orwell book (_1984_) along with Ray Bradburry's _Fahrenheit 451_-
you may want to take a look at the later as well. The aforementioned
instructor is no longer alive.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
8141
days inactive
8143
days old
24 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
allain＠panix.com -
andyh＠andyh-rayleigh.freeserve.co.uk -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bpope＠wordstock.com -
carlos_murillo＠epm.net.co -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
dquebbeman＠acm.org -
dtwright＠uiuc.edu -
foo＠siconic.com -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
msell＠ontimesupport.com -
notwax＠yahoo.com -
pat＠cart-server.purdueriots.com -
rdd＠rddavis.org -
spc＠conman.org -
wmsmith＠earthlink.net