I will not make this thread longer, I will not make this thread longer, I
will... ah screw it.
All I want to know is, will the MPAA be taking action against the
authors/distibutors of this tiny perl program in a similar manner to how
they have attacked the DeCSS "threat"?
Matthew
PS Jeff, you stole the words out of my mouth. Kindly expect a call from my
lawyer in the morning ;)
use perl
|| die "Et tu Brute?!: $!\n";
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffry Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Boston Perl Mongers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] Obfuscated Perl Script to Decrypt CSS
> Elaine -HFB- Ashton said:
> > David H. Adler [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
> > *>
> > *>I think people understand that just fine. The blurring of the line
> > *>between making piracy illegal and making technology that one *can* use
> > *>for piracy illegal is where people have issues. Well, the *right*
> > *>people, anyway. :-)
> >
> > We are on the same page then :) but I just don't see how the 'free
speech'
> > argument will work here.
> >
> > If I happened to have the diagrams of all the keys for toyotas for the
> > model year 2000 along with all the VINS so that people oculd make the
keys
> > and steal those cars at will, I don't think people would be willing to
> > defend my hacking the system to liberate this information. Freedom
fighter
> > liberating persecuted toyotas or criminal? If you own a 2000 toyta that
> > was stolen due to my actions, i'd guess you wouldn't be compelled to
think
> > me anything but a criminal.
>
> Actually, the DeCSS is more like the keys to your house. The MPAA is
trying
> to make it illegal for you to make a copy of the key to your front door.
Even
> worse, they own the key to your front door, and insist on the right to
> confiscate your house if you don't do things the way they want.
>
> In terms of the keys/VINS, it probably would be legal. I know that
describing
> bomb-making is protected by the First Amendment (ever seen the book _The
> Anarchists Cookbook_?).
>
> Contrary to what the MPAA would have people believe, not one piece of
illegal
> copying has been attributed to DeCSS. However, many illegal copies have
come
> from Hong Kong, et al. How? Through the simple means of slurping up the
bits
> on one disk, then spitting them down on another. No decryption required.
> DeCSS is not about copy protection, but about access control, something
> traditionally not allowed under Copyright law.
>
> >
> > The technology is cool, but I think legislators are trying their best to
> > make things equitable in these rather rapidly changing times. There
needs
> > to be a way to make sure that people get compensated for their work so
> > that they can feed their families and keep on creating and that won't
come
> > until the discussion turns from the technology itself, to the people as
> > they are the real issue.
>
> Nope, bought & paid for by the companies. Note that the RIAA does not
have
> anything to do with the artists - they represent the _Recording_ industry.
> Similarly for the MPAA. Copyright was designed for the artists:
> "Congress shall have the power ... To promote the Progress of Science and
> useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
> exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
>
> That's it in a nutshell. What the RIAA/MPAA want to do is remove fair
use, so
> their companies (threatened by the ability of artists to avoid the
middleman)
> can continue to rake in huge profits.
>
> >
> > It's too bad we don't have a 'Technology Ambassador' to the US Congress
> > and the Supreme Court to help them navigate some of the issues.
>
>
> Could use one. Also someone who could clue them in to the Constitution.
>
> jeff
>
