Is it apropos? (was: Re: [Plug] DVD people taking the hackers to court)

["Bill Jonas" <Bill_Jonas@msn.com>]

> In a purely objective manner, I will remind everyone that the issue of
> requests of questionable legality on this list has come up before, and I
> do believe the decision was to keep them off.  Please don't pursue this
> request further on-list.
>
> The DVD-CCA is allegating that the software involves a violation of a
> license agreement and improper reverse engineering, based on my
> non-professional reading of the official complaint.  They have a point,
> and an injunction is an injunction.  I'll also point out that they don't
> seem to be afraid to include anyone distributing the software.
>
> I've read some of the responses, and, to be honest, they sound more like
> people being bitter about Linux not appearing to be a viable enough market
> for DVD software and some very misguided flag-waving.

My apologies.  I've subscribed to the list since maybe August or late July
and didn't realize that this kind of content was inappropriate for the list.

My intent was to merely provide a "heads up" that some of the sites may be
going down soon, and that you should grab the files sooner rather than later
if you intend to get them.  If the "Doe defendants" are forced to take down
their sites, certainly there will be offshore mirrors, etc., but they can be
hard to track down.

>From the email that first alerted me to the situation:

<QUOTE>
(a) The reverse engineering (correctly referred to as "hacking" in the
court papers) occurred in a country in which reverse-engineering is
protected,
(b) The reverse engineered code was then legally imported into the US (and
other countries) via legal means,
(c) The only reason it even happened in the first place is so that someone
could write a Linux DVD player,
(d) The court hearing is going to happen this week, HERE, at the Santa
Clara County Superior Court
</QUOTE>

and from a different one:

<QUOTE>
The complaint states only one cause of action and contains _no citation of
law_ under which the action is brought.

Instead, the complaint repeats how _valuable_ and _important_ this
information
is to the DVD CCA folks.  But it does not accuse the defendants of violating
any specific law!
</QUOTE>

Also, if my understanding is correct, they never patented this encryption;
instead, it is a trade secret and subject to less stringent "protection".
If someone had gone "dumpster diving" and discovered, say, white papers
outlining the method, or signed an NDA and then leaked the information, that
would be a different matter.  However (if my understanding of IP law is
correct), if you discover a trade secret "on your own", i.e., by "figuring
it out", then you're safe.  Take for example Coca-Cola.  Around 100 years
ago a man discovered that a certain blend of sugars, syrups, cola nuts,
etc., produced a beverage with a particular flavor.  Had he patented this,
it would have been public knowledge and fair game for anyone to duplicate
after the patent expired.  As it is, anyone can produce a "taste-alike" as
long as the recipe is found through his/her own independent research, *not*
from stealing the secret from the Coca-Cola company.

That said, I am not a lawyer.  I don't even play one on TV.

I'll not deny that I made some suggestions as to what people should do.  I
was in a hurry to get this out because my fiancee was over and we were going
to watch some Star Trek on tape, and she has to work tomorrow morning, so I
just sat down at the keyboard and bashed something out (with an mp3 playing
loudly in the background) to get the word out and I didn't stop to proofread
what I wrote before I sent.  Once again:

main()
{
    insert(foot, open(mouth));
    main();
}

Seems I've been doing a lot of that lately.  :)

Once again, my apologies to the group.  I *have* advocated something legally
dubious, and I hope I have clarified why I have done so.

Bill




_______________________________________________
Plug maillist  -  Plug@lists.nothinbut.net
http://lists.nothinbut.net/mail/listinfo/plug