4 ms·

This is nothing to get in a tizzy about. DMCA is stupid, we know, but the reality is that laws are made all the time that have some asinine edge-case side effec

This is nothing to get in a tizzy about. DMCA is stupid, we know, but the reality is that laws are made all the time that have some asinine edge-case side effect that makes a totally innocent action a criminal offense. The important question here is, are you likely to be prosecuted for such a dumb thing. I think it's relatively safe to say you won't. Obviously we can't say the same for those of us who'd be inclined to build our own DVD playback software but to use it to view a DVD is, in reality, not going to get you in trouble. I'm not saying I support this. I absolutely don't. My question is, what's the point here? To me, this comes off as another article meant to get all the anti-copyright, anti-DMCA people to all come together and pat each other on the back for how smart they are for being against such silly laws. This stuff is good to know and interesting but I'm still a little disappointed its on the front page of HN. It seems like exactly the kind of thing the guidelines say not to post. It's an easy up vote - who can't get behind the idea of DVD playback on Linux being illegal being, well, ludicrous.

hughw 14y ago
Before I read this article, I didn't know exactly why Ubuntu comes without a DVD player, and I didn't understand CSS encryption. The article also offers interesting historical notes. Thanks to the OP for posting.
rpgmaker 14y ago
This is why this was posted on HN: "This stuff is good to know and interesting". I did know some of it but there might be some people who don't. Specially people that are new to linux.
anoncow 14y ago
There really is no point putting up a "fight". The content creators do not want to give their hardwork away. The content creators have to do whatever it takes to live. If the measures that they take legally bugs us, then we should create our own content and distribute it the way we want to or approach the courts. Talking about how a proprietary format is taking away our freedom will do nothing. And yes put your money where your mouth is. Support companies that do it the right way.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  Your argument is that if we disagree with a preposterous law, we should have to opt out of the law by opting out of popular culture. Why shouldn't we just fix the law?
  - anoncow 14y ago
    We can ask courts to allow reverse engineering. We can ask them to exempt personal use and backup. We can hope to remain invisible. But even after all of that we are still beholden to these content creators who hold us in contempt(their actions prove that). And if the courts and luck don't smile on us we end up being criminals too. Look at the music industry, even if lossy, the mp3s now available do not have drm. So things will change if we want to and we won't have to shun pop culture.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      OK sure, stop giving Hollywood money until they change their ways. Don't buy DRMed media. But fix the law too. They aren't mutually exclusive.
- wpietri 14y ago
  Who's asking for content creators to give their hard work away?
mpyne 14y ago
This is, believe it or not, not even the dumbest part about DMCA. However the legalese is worded, it seems mostly focused towards trying to prevent mass copyright infringement in a digital age. If you're someone who just wants to use your legally-acquired media then IMO (and IANAL!) you should fall into the "Reverse Engineering/Interoperability" exception of 1201(f) http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html They word it as the exception being granted for "programs exchanging information with programs" but I see no reason why that would not mean, in practice, libdvdcss <=> foo_player. Going back to what I said at first, a far dumber part of DMCA is that they actually ban the manufacture and import of analog video playback equipment (VHS, Beta, etc.) that doesn't obey "automatic gain control" copy control features. How many electrical engineering students might have run afoul of that in the course of their studies? (Edit: 1201(k) for those who want the reference)
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>The important question here is, are you likely to be prosecuted for such a dumb thing. That is not the important question. The important question is whether people engaged in legitimate activity will modify their behavior in order to avoid the possibility of being prosecuted for such a dumb thing. Which has already happened. Ubuntu doesn't include DVD playback support. Nobody makes a DVD jukebox like what Real wanted to make when the courts shut them down. The amount of innovation that hasn't happened because nobody can sell it in Walmart without risking a lawsuit or criminal prosecution is unthinkable and we are all poorer for it. The point of articles like this is to get more people behind doing something about it. There is no legitimate reason that circumventing DRM when there is no underlying act of infringement should be illegal. The entire concept of criminalizing circumvention is a failure and a farce, but criminalizing circumvention without infringement is (as you rightly point out) just plain ludicrous. So let's fix that at the very least.
- bediger4000 14y ago
  > The amount of innovation that hasn't happened because ... I've mulled this over many times while waiting for my (licensed) DVD player to boot - there's no economic pressure for DVD player manufacturers to compete, since there's such a large barrier to entry. Sure, the hardware is cheap, but the software is both terrible (crashes, odd UI behavior, dictates work flow) and slow, slow SLOW. DVDCCA is clearly a cartel, at least in terms of behavior, if not actual legal definition, and we see it in terms of lack of innovative UX on DVD players. I see this as akin to the Windows experience vs Linux experience. Windows boots slowly, apps start slowly. Linux boots rapidly, and gets speedier over the years, not slower. Apps start fast, windows open instantly (instead of showing a dern splash screen for 30 seconds). Microsoft is something of a market-fixing cartel. The Linux market has a lot of competition, pain points get addressed quickly, the experience changes.
Livven 14y ago
Forgot Aaron Swartz already? Indeed, 99% of the time these edge cases won't affect you. But there's still that 1%...
wpietri 14y ago
Three points: Laws are made by people who in theory represent us. Democracy requires us, the sovereign citizenry, to pay attention to how well the law is functioning. This is not an asinine edge case effect. This is at the heart of the DMCA. The goal was a global system of control by a relatively small number of media executives over the watching of all video everywhere. It is worth asking whether that's how we want the world to work. When totally innocent actions are criminal offenses, everybody is at risk of capricious prosecution. Or, worse, targeted prosecution for political reasons. Do we really want anybody considering a political act or statement to be scared out of it by realizing that they could do serious jail time for some innocent act?

hughw 14y ago

Before I read this article, I didn't know exactly why Ubuntu comes without a DVD player, and I didn't understand CSS encryption. The article also offers interesting historical notes. Thanks to the OP for posting.

rpgmaker 14y ago

This is why this was posted on HN: "This stuff is good to know and interesting". I did know some of it but there might be some people who don't. Specially people that are new to linux.

anoncow 14y ago

There really is no point putting up a "fight". The content creators do not want to give their hardwork away. The content creators have to do whatever it takes to live. If the measures that they take legally bugs us, then we should create our own content and distribute it the way we want to or approach the courts. Talking about how a proprietary format is taking away our freedom will do nothing. And yes put your money where your mouth is. Support companies that do it the right way.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
Your argument is that if we disagree with a preposterous law, we should have to opt out of the law by opting out of popular culture. Why shouldn't we just fix the law?
- anoncow 14y ago
  We can ask courts to allow reverse engineering. We can ask them to exempt personal use and backup. We can hope to remain invisible. But even after all of that we are still beholden to these content creators who hold us in contempt(their actions prove that). And if the courts and luck don't smile on us we end up being criminals too. Look at the music industry, even if lossy, the mp3s now available do not have drm. So things will change if we want to and we won't have to shun pop culture.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    OK sure, stop giving Hollywood money until they change their ways. Don't buy DRMed media. But fix the law too. They aren't mutually exclusive.
wpietri 14y ago
Who's asking for content creators to give their hard work away?

mpyne 14y ago

This is, believe it or not, not even the dumbest part about DMCA. However the legalese is worded, it seems mostly focused towards trying to prevent mass copyright infringement in a digital age. If you're someone who just wants to use your legally-acquired media then IMO (and IANAL!) you should fall into the "Reverse Engineering/Interoperability" exception of 1201(f) http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html They word it as the exception being granted for "programs exchanging information with programs" but I see no reason why that would not mean, in practice, libdvdcss <=> foo_player. Going back to what I said at first, a far dumber part of DMCA is that they actually ban the manufacture and import of analog video playback equipment (VHS, Beta, etc.) that doesn't obey "automatic gain control" copy control features. How many electrical engineering students might have run afoul of that in the course of their studies? (Edit: 1201(k) for those who want the reference)

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

>The important question here is, are you likely to be prosecuted for such a dumb thing. That is not the important question. The important question is whether people engaged in legitimate activity will modify their behavior in order to avoid the possibility of being prosecuted for such a dumb thing. Which has already happened. Ubuntu doesn't include DVD playback support. Nobody makes a DVD jukebox like what Real wanted to make when the courts shut them down. The amount of innovation that hasn't happened because nobody can sell it in Walmart without risking a lawsuit or criminal prosecution is unthinkable and we are all poorer for it. The point of articles like this is to get more people behind doing something about it. There is no legitimate reason that circumventing DRM when there is no underlying act of infringement should be illegal. The entire concept of criminalizing circumvention is a failure and a farce, but criminalizing circumvention without infringement is (as you rightly point out) just plain ludicrous. So let's fix that at the very least.

bediger4000 14y ago
> The amount of innovation that hasn't happened because ... I've mulled this over many times while waiting for my (licensed) DVD player to boot - there's no economic pressure for DVD player manufacturers to compete, since there's such a large barrier to entry. Sure, the hardware is cheap, but the software is both terrible (crashes, odd UI behavior, dictates work flow) and slow, slow SLOW. DVDCCA is clearly a cartel, at least in terms of behavior, if not actual legal definition, and we see it in terms of lack of innovative UX on DVD players. I see this as akin to the Windows experience vs Linux experience. Windows boots slowly, apps start slowly. Linux boots rapidly, and gets speedier over the years, not slower. Apps start fast, windows open instantly (instead of showing a dern splash screen for 30 seconds). Microsoft is something of a market-fixing cartel. The Linux market has a lot of competition, pain points get addressed quickly, the experience changes.

Livven 14y ago

Forgot Aaron Swartz already? Indeed, 99% of the time these edge cases won't affect you. But there's still that 1%...

wpietri 14y ago

Three points: Laws are made by people who in theory represent us. Democracy requires us, the sovereign citizenry, to pay attention to how well the law is functioning. This is not an asinine edge case effect. This is at the heart of the DMCA. The goal was a global system of control by a relatively small number of media executives over the watching of all video everywhere. It is worth asking whether that's how we want the world to work. When totally innocent actions are criminal offenses, everybody is at risk of capricious prosecution. Or, worse, targeted prosecution for political reasons. Do we really want anybody considering a political act or statement to be scared out of it by realizing that they could do serious jail time for some innocent act?