2 March 2001: Add responses.
1 March 2001
See related: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-dvc.htm
[Certified mail March 1, 2001.]
225 B Cochrane Circle
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
February 26, 2001
Mr. John Young
251 West 89th Street Suite 6E
New York, New York 10024
Dear Mr. Young:
On behalf of DVD Copy Control Association ("DVD CCA"), I am writing to demand that you immediately remove material posted at the following URL:
cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm
from the above-referenced web site. Your web site is illegally posting trade secrets licensed by DVD CCA in violation of two Orders issued by the Santa Clara County Superior Court in California on January 21, 2000 and January 26, 2000.
By way of background, DVD CCA is the sole licensor of trade secrets which comprise the Content Scramble System ("CSS"), encryption/decryption technology designed to protect motion pictures released on Digital Versatile Discs ("DVDs"). In late October 1999, it became apparent that a program titled DeCSS was developed which allowed CSS to be circumvented by incorporating DVD CCA's trade secrets, and was being posted illegally on the Internet.
On December 27, 1999, DVD CCA filed a Complaint in the Santa Clara County Superior Court in the State of California (Case No. CV 786804) against 21 defendants, 72 "Doe" defendants for whom a web site address had been identified and an additional 428 Doe Defendants. (A true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached as Exhibit A.) At the same time, DVD CCA also filed an Application for a Preliminary Injunction seeking to have the Court prohibit these defendants from posting the CSS trade secrets. On January 21, 2000, the Court granted DVD CCA's Application and issued a preliminary injunction which provides as follows:
The named Defendants, their officers, directors, principals, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, representatives and all persons acting in concert with them, are hereby enjoined from: Posting or otherwise disclosing or distributing, on their websites or elsewhere, the DeCSS program, the master keys or algorithms of the Content Scrambling System ("CSS"), or any other information derived from this proprietary information.
(Preliminary Injunction at 1-2). (A true and correct copy of the Court's Order Granting Preliminary Injunction is attached hereto as Exhibit B.)
The above-referenced web site is illegally posting the CSS trade secrets in violation of the Preliminary Injunction.
On January 26, 2000, after the Preliminary Injunction was granted, the Court also issued a protective order sealing the portions of the document posted at the above-referenced URL that contain CSS trade secrets. (A true and correct copy of the Court's Protective Order Placing Under Seal Exhibits A and B to the Reply Declaration of John Hoy (the "Seal Order") is attached hereto as Exhibit C.) The posting of the document at the above-referenced URL is in violation of the Court's Seal Order.
DVD CCA demands that you cause the immediate removal from the above web site the above-referenced document, as well as any other information derived from this proprietary information, including the DeCSS program, the master keys and CSS algorithms. Please confirm in writing within five (5) business days that you have effected removal of this material. If we have not received a response from you, we will use all forms of relief available to have the offending material removed.
We appreciate your immediate cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,John J. Hoy
President and Chief Operating Officer
[Exhibits A, B and C omitted.]
By fax: 408-779-9291
March 1, 2001
Mr. John J. Hoy
President and Chief Operating Officer
DVD Copy Control Association
225 B Cochrane Circle
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Dear Mr. Hoy,
In response to your letter of February 26, 2001, received today, the document at :
cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm
has been removed and your letter and this response published in its place.
Regards,
John Young
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:41:55 -0700
From: Paul Fenimore <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [dvd-discuss] March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
<http://cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm>
<quote>
[Certified mail March 1, 2001.]
DVD Copy Control Association
225 B Cochrane Circle
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
February 26, 2001
Mr. John Young
251 West 89th Street Suite 6E
New York, New York 10024
Dear Mr. Young:
On behalf of DVD Copy Control Association ("DVD CCA"), I am writing to
demand that you immediately remove material posted at the following
URL:
cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm
from the above-referenced web site. Your web site is illegally posting
trade secrets licensed by DVD CCA in violation of two Orders issued by
the Santa Clara County Superior Court in California on January 21,
2000 and January 26, 2000.
[ blah blah blah ]
</quote>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:00:42 -0800
From: S
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
It seems kind of out of character for you to have removed a
document from Cryptome immediately upon receipt of a demand letter.
Did you think that Mr. Hoy's argument was correct? Were you
concerned that the DVD CCA would sue you?
Are you nitpicking over the particular choice of URL and planning
to publish that document elsewhere? Or is something else going on?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 04:25 PM
To: S
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
I expected Hoy to immediately go to Verio to have the doc yanked
or Cryptome itself yanked, based on Verio's reaction to the MPAA
letter in January which is linked at the letter -- and which surely
prompted Hoy's demand, as we assumed it would.
Moreover, the document has been massively downloaded, so
somebody else will offer it. [Downloads >200,000]
And, we're wrestling other alligators right now, so this is one that
is not on our fight card; it's available for another battler.
John
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:55:48 -0800
From: S
To: John Young <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
I did find a couple of copies easily by searching for "DVD Hoy reply"
on Google. Do you think you would incur liability or headaches by
linking to somebody else's version?
I'm sure you're pretty busy between the current trial in SDNY and the
upcoming one in Washington.
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 05:23 PM
To: S
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
I'd rather not name a target for Hoy to shoot. Folks should
know how to find the file like you did, that's why I left the
name and Hoy's avid description.
John
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:31:56 -0500
From: Brian Ristuccia <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
And in a way quite odd for John Young, he has complied with their request:
Dear Mr. Hoy,
In response to your letter of February 26, 2001, received today, the
document at :
cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm
has been removed and your letter and this response published in its place.
Regards,
John Young
--
Brian Ristuccia
[email protected]
[email protected]
From: Anonymous
To: [email protected]
The letter refers to the "URL": cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm
Since this does not include the access method (probably HTTP), it is
not a proper URL.
And now for a question about Trade Secrets. The letter almost
acknowledges that the only reason they have for asking you to remove
the posting is the court injunction.
If Trade Secrets are exposed, then they have no protection, according
to my limited understanding (a quick disclaimer: IANAL, IANAA (I Am
Not An American :))
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 23:55:41 -0600
From: Chris Moseng <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> And in a way quite odd for John Young, he has complied with their request:
He's done that before, with a PDF leaked from the Times, and
subsequently made the document available again. He's probably just
mulling over an appropriate response.
But don't take my word for it, let's ask him.
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 07:48:49 -0500
To: [email protected]
From: John Young <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
We had been expecting a letter since January when MPAA
sent our ISP, Verio, a letter about the same file, alleging it
offered DeCSS, which it did not and which we denied in
a response to Verio. We expected Hoy to go to Verio
to have the file removed if we did not, and we think Verio
would have yanked it or yanked Cryptome, based on prior
correspondence with Verio's legal department. We linked
to the Verio correspondence in the replacement file.
Moreover, the file has been heavily downloaded, the single
most from Cryptome, so it is widely distributed. Those who
want it will find it through search engines. And somebody
will probably offer it, or maybe several somebodies as the
word spreads, emulating DeCSS distribution.
Hoy is probably as surprised as others that the file was
yanked. Now he's got to worry about the consequences,
and what the evildoers will do.
Listen, doing the unexpected is a tonic. Now hear this:
Proskauer wrote a couple a days ago and asked if Cryptome
would publish its CA2 appeal brief, and sent along an
un-footnoted version. I answered that we already had
done that, with footnotes. Sorry, said Proskauer, didn't
know that.
We asked to be sent their briefs in digital form to save us
a load of labor to scan hardcopy. Proskauer said will do,
and maybe that will happen.
The option to publish Prokauer's request is awaiting a
goad -- wait a minute I just got goaded by Hoy. The
Proskauer request for help would be an apt bicoastal
cohort to Hoy's demand for help.
Evil abounds.
From: Craig Markwardt <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:10:53 -0600 (CST)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
While the Hoy declaration might possibly be removed for containing
trade secrets, it's hard to make a case that the CSS Procedural
Specifications are still trade secrets. After all, the DVDCCA itself
has published the specifications here:
http://www.dvdcca.org/dvdcca/data/css/
and now mirrored by Tom here:
http://www.lemuria.org/DeCSS/decss.html
The DVDCCA site in fact has several versions of the Specifications
document, among some more mundane application forms and paperwork.
How can Hoy now claim that these are still trade secrets? John, can
you not publish one of these versions instead?
Craig
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 09:31:31 -0500
To: [email protected]
From: John Young <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
In answer to Craig:
What the Hoy Reply file contained was the CSS code,
not the specs.
The CSS code was mislabeled as "DeCSS" and appeared
to have come from Japan for it had Japanese page numbers
on it.
Somebody at DVD CCA's attorney overlooked the CSS code,
due to the mislabel or general ignorance of coding, or sloth in
filing procedures, when the doc was filed in court unsealed.
After the file was Slashdotted and reported in the news, DVD CCA
went back to court to get the doc sealed. At the time we were told
that the seal applied only to lawyers involved, that the horse was
out of the barn, again like DeCSS. DVD CCA never made a
request to remove the file, before now.
We not trying to be smart when we say we saw Hoy's letter as
an opportunity to call attention to the file and its already
widespread distribution. There has not been much interest
in it lately, as far as we know, and MPAA's and Hoy's demands
that it be removed present new opportunities for doing what
must be done, which is feel their pain and call attention to
it.
It is possible that the file will reappear on Cryptome in the
public interest should it become a topic of debate. But more
likely, and best, it will become widely available elsewhere --
that's if anyone gives a hoot besides MPAA and DVD CCA
and their amici.
From: "D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:10:03 -0700
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
So -- let's be totally clear here -- the Plaintiffs are now on record,
in writing, repeatedly after the fact was pointed out to them, as
officially objecting to the distribution of their own CSS code on the
grounds that it's an illegal circumvention device?
--
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> ----------+
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 10:29:51 -0500
To: [email protected]
From: John Young <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
>So -- let's be totally clear here -- the Plaintiffs are now on record,
>in writing, repeatedly after the fact was pointed out to them, as
>officially objecting to the distribution of their own CSS code on the
>grounds that it's an illegal circumvention device?
No, DVD CCA is objecting to its "trade secret" CSS code being
published, more than a year after first published, widely publicized
and widely distributed.
It was the MPAA robot cease-and-desist-letter sender which
objected to the Hoy Reply offering of DeCSS, which it did not
contain.
This confusion on the part of DVD CCA and MPAA about the
Hoy Reply file was itself extensively discussed last year.
But the plaintiffs robots do not read the Net any better than
the plaintiffs read court filings made in their name.
What the plaintiffs do want is publicity for their view of
reality -- which is to insist on their rights no matter the
FUD over what those rights are. See Jack Valenti's statements
which affirm FUD as MPAA's proprietary FUD, absolutely, and
if there is any doubt about that the FUD copyrighters will go
back to Congress who will legislate the FUD as belonging to
the FUD copyright corps, backed by FUD Copyright Office
and multiple Judges of FUD.
Remember that FUD(c) is intellectual property for those with
the resources to legally steal it.
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:00:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Jeremy A Erwin <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
The Hoy declaration contains a copy of DeCSS source code. This
document was not (initially) sealed by the California courts.
Jeremy
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:15:14 -0500
From: "Peter D. Junger" <[email protected]>
In connection with the draft of my article on the Anti-Circumvention
provisions of the DMCA, which I announced sometime back on this list,
I had posted just the CSS code taken from the Hoy Declaration on my
web site together with a link to the Cryptome version for those who
wanted to see the text in context. Now that the Cryptome version is
gone, what should I use for a link?
By the way, the article is going very well, but rather slowly.
Here's what I have on my web site at
<http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/dmca/csscode.html>:
\begin{quotation}
This version of the CSS program is copied from Exhibit B to the Reply
Declaration of John J. Hoy dated January 18, 2000 and filed in the
case of DVD Copy Control Association v. McLaughlin in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. See Hoy
Declaration on Cryptome.
CSSscrambleT.txt
unsigned int CSStab0[11]={5,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4};
unsigned char CSStab1[256]=
{
0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x7e,0x36,0x2b,0
x6e,0x2e,0x66,0x7b,
0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e,0xd6,0x0b,0
x4e,0x0e,0x46,0x9b,
0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1a,0x52,0x8f,0
xca,0x8a,0xc2,0x1f,
0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x98,0xd0,0x01,0
x48,0x08,0x40,0x91,
0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7c,0x34,0x25,0
x6c,0x2c,0x64,0x75,
0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x9c,0xd4,0x05,0
x4c,0x0c,0x44,0x95,
0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x18,0x50,0x81,0
xc8,0x88,0xc0,0x11,
0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a,0xd2,0x0f,0
x4a,0x0a,0x42,0x9f,
0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x1e,0x56,0x8b,0
xce,0x8e,0xc6,0x1b,
0xb3,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe,0xb6,0xab,0
xee,0xae,0xe6,0xfb,
0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a,0x32,0x2f,0
x6a,0x2a,0x62,0x7f,
0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0xf8,0xb0,0xa1,0
xe8,0xa8,0xe0,0xf1,
0x5d,0x1d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c,0x54,0x85,0
xcc,0x8c,0xc4,0x15,
0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc,0xb4,0xa5,0
xec,0xac,0xe4,0xf5,
0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x78,0x30,0x21,0
x68,0x28,0x60,0x71,
0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa,0xb2,0xaf,0
xea,0xaa,0xe2,0xff
};
unsigned char CSStab2[256]=
{
0x00,0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x09,0x08,0x0b,0x0a,0
x0d,0x0c,0x0f,0x0e,
0x12,0x13,0x10,0x11,0x16,0x17,0x14,0x15,0x1b,0x1a,0x19,0x18,0
x1f,0x1e,0x1d,0x1c,
1 peeji [Japanese for "page"]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
CSSscrambleT.txt
0x24,0x25,0x26,0x27,0x20,0x21,0x22,0x23,0x2d,0x2c,0x2f,0x2e,0
x29,0x28,0x2b,0x2a,
0x36,0x37,0x34,0x35,0x32,0x33,0x30,0x31,0x3f,0x3e,0x3d,0x3c,0
x3b,0x3a,0x39,0x38,
0x49,0x48,0x4b,0x4a,0x4d,0x4c,0x4f,0x4e,0x40,0x41,0x42,0x43,0
x44,0x45,0x46,0x47,
0x5b,0x5a,0x59,0x58,0x5f,0x5e,0x5d,0x5c,0x52,0x53,0x50,0x51,0
x56,0x57,0x54,0x55,
0x6d,0x6c,0x6f,0x6e,0x69,0x68,0x6b,0x6a,0x64,0x65,0x66,0x67,0
x60,0x61,0x62,0x63,
0x7f,0x7e,0x7d,0x7c,0x7b,0x7a,0x79,0x78,0x76,0x77,0x74,0x75,0
x72,0x73,0x70,0x71,
0x92,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x96,0x97,0x94,0x95,0x9b,0x9a,0x99,0x98,0
x9f,0x9e,0x9d,0x9c,
0x80,0x81,0x82,0x83,0x84,0x85,0x86,0x87,0x89,0x88,0x8b,0x8a,0
x8d,0x8c,0x8f,0x8e,
0xb6,0xb7,0xb4,0xb5,0xb2,0xb3,0xb0,0xb1,0xbf,0xbe,0xbd,0xbc,0
xbb,0xba,0xb9,0xb8,
0xa4,0xa5,0xa6,0xa7,0xa0,0xa1,0xa2,0xa3,0xad,0xac,0xaf,0xae,0
xa9,0xa8,0xab,0xaa,
0xdb,0xda,0xd9,0xd8,0xdf,0xde,0xdd,0xdc,0xd2,0xd3,0xd0,0xd1,0
xd6,0xd7,0xd4,0xd5,
0xc9,0xc8,0xcb,0xca,0xcd,0xcc,0xcf,0xce,0xc0,0xc1,0xc2,0xc3,0
xc4,0xc5,0xc6,0xc7,
0xff,0xfe,0xfd,0xfc,0xfb,0xfa,0xf9,0xf8,0xf6,0xf7,0xf4,0xf5,0
xf2,0xf3,0xf0,0xf1,
0xed,0xec,0xef,0xee,0xe9,0xe8,0xeb,0xea,0xe4,0xe5,0xe6,0xe7,0
xe0,0xe1,0xe2,0xe3
};
unsigned char CSStab3[512]=
{
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
2 peeji
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
CSSscrambleT.txt
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
3 peeji
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
CSSscrambleT.txt
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0
x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff
};
unsigned char CSStab4[256]=
{
0x00,0x80,0x40,0xc0,0x20,0xa0,0x60,0xe0,0x10,0x90,0x50,0xd0,0
x30,0xb0,0x70,0xf0,
0x08,0x88,0x48,0xc8,0x28,0xa8,0x68,0xe8,0x18,0x98,0x58,0xd8,0
x38,0xb8,0x78,0xf8,
0x04,0x84,0x44,0xc4,0x24,0xa4,0x64,0xe4,0x14,0x94,0x54,0xd4,0
x34,0xb4,0x74,0xf4,
0x0c,0x8c,0x4c,0xcc,0x2c,0xac,0x6c,0xec,0x1c,0x9c,0x5c,0xdc,0
x3c,0xbc,0x7c,0xfc,
0x02,0x82,0x42,0xc2,0x22,0xa2,0x62,0xe2,0x12,0x92,0x52,0xd2,0
x32,0xb2,0x72,0xf2,
0x0a,0x8a,0x4a,0xca,0x2a,0xaa,0x6a,0xea,0x1a,0x9a,0x5a,0xda,0
x3a,0xba,0x7a,0xfa,
0x06,0x86,0x46,0xc6,0x26,0xa6,0x66,0xe6,0x16,0x96,0x56,0xd6,0
x36,0xb6,0x76,0xf6,
0x0e,0x8e,0x4e,0xce,0x2e,0xae,0x6e,0xee,0x1e,0x9e,0x5e,0xde,0
x3e,0xbe,0x7e,0xfe,
0x01,0x81,0x41,0xc1,0x21,0xa1,0x61,0xe1,0x11,0x91,0x51,0xd1,0
x31,0xb1,0x71,0xf1,
0x09,0x89,0x49,0xc9,0x29,0xa9,0x69,0xe9,0x19,0x99,0x59,0xd9,0
x39,0xb9,0x79,0xf9,
0x05,0x85,0x45,0xc5,0x25,0xa5,0x65,0xe5,0x15,0x95,0x55,0xd5,0
x35,0xb5,0x75,0xf5,
0x0d,0x8d,0x4d,0xcd,0x2d,0xad,0x6d,0xed,0x1d,0x9d,0x5d,0xdd,0
x3d,0xbd,0x7d,0xfd,
0x03,0x83,0x43,0xc3,0x23,0xa3,0x63,0xe3,0x13,0x93,0x53,0xd3,0
x33,0xb3,0x73,0xf3,
0x0b,0x8b,0x4b,0xcb,0x2b,0xab,0x6b,0xeb,0x1b,0x9b,0x5b,0xdb,0
x3b,0xbb,0x7b,0xfb,
0x07,0x87,0x47,0xc7,0x27,0xa7,0x67,0xe7,0x17,0x97,0x57,0xd7,0
x37,0xb7,0x77,0xf7,
0x0f,0x8f,0x4f,0xcf,0x2f,0xaf,0x6f,0xef,0x1f,0x9f,0x5f,0xdf,0
x3f,0xbf,0x7f,0xff
4 peeji
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
CSSscrambleT.txt
};
unsigned char CSStab5[256]=
{
0xff,0x7f,0xbf,0x3f,0xdf,0x5f,0x9f,0x1f,0xef,0x6f,0xaf,0x2f,0
xcf,0x4f,0x8f,0x0f,
0xf7,0x77,0xb7,0x37,0xd7,0x57,0x97,0x17,0xe7,0x67,0xa7,0x27,0
xc7,0x47,0x87,0x07,
0xfb,0x7b,0xbb,0x3b,0xdb,0x5b,0x9b,0x1b,0xeb,0x6b,0xab,0x2b,0
xcb,0x4b,0x8b,0x0b,
0xf3,0x73,0xb3,0x33,0xd3,0x53,0x93,0x13,0xe3,0x63,0xa3,0x23,0
xc3,0x43,0x83,0x03,
0xfd,0x7d,0xbd,0x3d,0xdd,0x5d,0x9d,0x1d,0xed,0x6d,0xad,0x2d,0
xcd,0x4d,0x8d,0x0d,
0xf5,0x75,0xb5,0x35,0xd5,0x55,0x95,0x15,0xe5,0x65,0xa5,0x25,0
xc5,0x45,0x85,0x05,
0xf9,0x79,0xb9,0x39,0xd9,0x59,0x99,0x19,0xe9,0x69,0xa9,0x29,0
xc9,0x49,0x89,0x09,
0xf1,0x71,0xb1,0x31,0xd1,0x51,0x91,0x11,0xe1,0x61,0xa1,0x21,0
xc1,0x41,0x81,0x01,
0xfe,0x7e,0xbe,0x3e,0xde,0x5e,0x9e,0x1e,0xee,0x6e,0xae,0x2e,0
xce,0x4e,0x8e,0x0e,
0xf6,0x76,0xb6,0x36,0xd6,0x56,0x96,0x16,0xe6,0x66,0xa6,0x26,0
xc6,0x46,0x86,0x06,
0xfa,0x7a,0xba,0x3a,0xda,0x5a,0x9a,0x1a,0xea,0x6a,0xaa,0x2a,0
xca,0x4a,0x8a,0x0a,
0xf2,0x72,0xb2,0x32,0xd2,0x52,0x92,0x12,0xe2,0x62,0xa2,0x22,0
xc2,0x42,0x82,0x02,
0xfc,0x7c,0xbc,0x3c,0xdc,0x5c,0x9c,0x1c,0xec,0x6c,0xac,0x2c,0
xcc,0x4c,0x8c,0x0c,
0xf4,0x74,0xb4,0x34,0xd4,0x54,0x94,0x14,0xe4,0x64,0xa4,0x24,0
xc4,0x44,0x84,0x04,
0xf8,0x78,0xb8,0x38,0xd8,0x58,0x98,0x18,0xe8,0x68,0xa8,0x28,0
xc8,0x48,0x88,0x08,
0xf0,0x70,0xb0,0x30,0xd0,0x50,0x90,0x10,0xe0,0x60,0xa0,0x20,0
xc0,0x40,0x80,0x00
};
void CSSdescramble(unsigned char *sec,unsigned char *key)
{
unsigned int t1,t2,t3,t4,t5,t6;
unsigned char *end=sec+0x800;
t1=key[0]^sec[0x54]|0x100;
5 peeji
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
CSSscrambleT.txt
t2=key[1]^sec[0x55];
t3=(*((unsigned int *)(key+2)))^(*((unsigned int *)(sec+0x56)
));
t4=t3&7;
t3=t3*2+8-t4;
sec+=0x80;
t5=0;
while(sec!=end)
{
t4=CSStab2[t2]^CSStab3[t1];
t2=t1>>1;
t1=((t1&1)<<8)^t4;
t4=CSStab5[t4];
t6=(((((((t3>>3)^t3)>>1)^t3)>>8)^t3)>>5)&0xff;
t3=(t3<<8)|t6;
t6=CSStab4[t6];
t5+=t6+t4;
*sec++=CSStab1[*sec]^(t5&0xff);
t5>>=8;
}
}
void CSStitlekey1(unsigned char *key,unsigned char *im)
{
unsigned int t1,t2,t3,t4,t5,t6;
unsigned char k[5];
int i;
t1=im[0]|0x100;
t2=im[1];
t3=*((unsigned int *)(im+2));
t4=t3&7;
t3=t3*2+8-t4;
t5=0;
for(i=0;i<5;i++)
{
t4=CSStab2[t2]^CSStab3[t1];
t2=t1>>1;
t1=((t1&1)<<8)^t4;
t4=CSStab4[t4];
t6=(((((((t3>>3)^t3)>>1)^t3)>>8)^t3)>>5)&0xff;
t3=(t3<<8)|t6;
t6=CSStab4[t6];
t5+=t6+t4;
6 peeji
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
CSSscrambleT.txt
k[i]=t5&0xff;
t5>>=8;
}
for(i=9;i>=0;i--)
key[CSStab0[i+1]]=k[CSStab0[i+1]]^CSStab1[key[CSStab0
[i+1]]]^key[CSStab0[i]];
}
void CSStitlekey2(unsigned char *key,unsigned char *im)
{
unsigned int t1,t2,t3,t4,t5,t6;
unsigned char k[5];
int i;
t1=im[0]|0x100;
t2=im[1];
t3=*((unsigned int *)(im+2));
t4=t3&7;
t3=t3*2+8-t4;
t5=0;
for(i=0;i<5;i++)
{
t4=CSStab2[t2]^CSStab3[t1];
t2=t1>>1;
t1=((t1&1)<<8)^t4;
t4=CSStab4[t4];
t6=(((((((t3>>3)^t3)>>1)^t3)>>8)^t3)>>5)&0xff;
t3=(t3<<8)|t6;
t6=CSStab5[t6];
t5+=t6+t4;
k[i]=t5&0xff;
t5>>=8;
}
for(i=9;i>=0;i--)
key[CSStab0[i+1]]=k[CSStab0[i+1]]^CSStab1[key[CSStab0
[i+1]]]^key[CSStab0[i]];
}
void CSSdecrypttitlekey(unsigned char *tkey,unsigned char *dkey)
{
int i;
unsigned char im1[6];
unsigned char im2[6]={0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0,0x00};
7 peeji
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
CSSscrambleT.txt
for(i=0;i<6;i++)
im1[i]=dkey[i];
CSStitlekey1(im1,im2);
CSStitlekey2(tkey,im1);
}
8 peeji
\end{quotation}
--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
EMAIL: [email protected] URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu
NOTE: [email protected] no longer exists
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:12:57 -0500
To: [email protected]
From: John Young <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
Jeremy wrote:
>The Hoy declaration contains a copy of DeCSS source code. This
>document was not (initially) sealed by the California courts.
Sorry to belabor this point, but the Hoy file did not contain DeCSS.
The only DeCSS-related items were two brief DeCSS introductory
notes (Exhibit A), but not the DeCSS code itself. The only code in the
doc (Exhibit B) was that of CSS, mislabeled in handwriting
"DeCSS," but titled in print "CSSscrambleT.txt".
CSS is the trade secret, not DeCSS -- well, DeCSS is the trade
unsecret of MoE.
Gosh, we might have to post Exhibits A and B here to present
the evidence for ajudication. But then bottomless-pocketed
Harvard would become a demand target.
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:39:25 -0500
From: "Peter D. Junger" <[email protected]>
John Young writes:
: Gosh, we might have to post Exhibits A and B here to present
: the evidence for ajudication. But then bottomless-pocketed
: Harvard would become a demand target.
O! dear me, why didn't I think of that?
--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
EMAIL: [email protected] URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu
NOTE: [email protected] no longer exists
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 10:45:15 -0600
From: Chris Moseng <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
"Peter D. Junger" wrote:
> Now that the Cryptome version is
> gone, what should I use for a link?
There are hundreds of results on google for "hoy reply," but I humbly
offer <a
href="http://www.underwhelm.org/decss/dvd-hoy-reply.html">mine</a>.
Pros: Hosted on my own computer, of which domain I am the owner; haven't
gotten a threat from the MPAA since I sent them <a
href="http://www.underwhelm.org/decss/reply.html">this email.</a>
Cons: Hosted on a 256k DSL line with no redundant link off a 95% uptime
linux box; no QOS guarantee.
--
[email protected]
I use PGP 6.5.3 -- http://www.underwhelm.org/pgp
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 12:06:57 -0500
From: "Peter D. Junger" <[email protected]>
Chris Moseng writes:
: There are hundreds of results on google for "hoy reply," but I humbly
: offer <a
: href="http://www.underwhelm.org/decss/dvd-hoy-reply.html">mine</a>.
Thank you. The link now points at your version.
--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
EMAIL: [email protected] URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu
NOTE: [email protected] no longer exists
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:56:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Bryan Taylor <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
To: [email protected]
My (non-lawyer) understanding is that if you obtained the document from
unsealed (at the time) court records, then that act was not a misappropriation
of a trade secret, since you have no duty to maintain secrecy of unsealed court
records. The fact that the records are now sealed probably does not change the
status of the act of obtaining them.
Since you published them on the web, with much fanfare and announcements on
several highly visible mailing lists and news sites like Slashdot, I think it
is likely that the CSS trade secret status has been permanently lost,
especially because your posting was unchallenged for so long. I also believe
that anyone who obtained them from you has not misappropriated anything.
After all, a trade secret must be secret and it must be defended.
I would think some of the defendents in the CA case would have an interest in
helping you get a declaratory judgement that your posting was not
misappropriation and brings to an end the CSS trade secret status.
I understand that you might not want to engage the motion picture industry in a
legal battle, but if my understanding of the law is correct (second opinions?)
you might consider getting representation, because it looks like a naked
attempt to bully you by the MPAA.
From: "John Zulauf" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:06:20 -0700
Bryan Taylor Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 9:57 AM
> After all, a trade secret must be secret and it must be defended.
This occurred to me as well. How long has the Hoy declaration been
published? Do you have a list of the number and places the publication of
the declaration was made known publically? For how long would a web search
have turned up hits on the declaration? Wouldn't that fine legal fiction of
the "reasonable man" need respond in something substantially 13 months it
has take them to send you the C&D. Clearly a "reasonable man" would have
been doing web searches. Clearly the MPAA has done so in the much shorter
period since the lower courts decision.
IANAL -- any lawyers want to comment on how quickly a trade secret must be
defended? Any standard of thoroughness (and typing "hoy declaration" into
google is pretty low effort) for searching out and irradicating copies of an
unintentionally leak document? It's not as if this file was encrypted on
"evil.f.ing.hackers.com" available only to script-kiddies and those with the
secrect decoder ring. It wasn't even Rot-13'd or uuencoded to obscure it.
It was posted on the electronic equivalent of a billboard** -- visible to
anyone who looked for it worldwide (that's a darn big billboard) on a site
well known for it's involvement in the CSS/deCSS/DMCA/DVD-CCA matters.
While "hoy declaration" returns many bogus links searching for something
more disctintive from the document like
peeji & "0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x7e"
takes one right to several copies of the Hoy CSS document. Now Hoy might
complain the he is no internet search expert -- well there are many to be
found. Hiring security or other experts to protect a trade secret certainly
is within the bounds of what a "reasonable man" would be expected to do.
This seems especially true when the holder of a secret is in the midst of a
lawsuit to keep that same information secret.
It strikes me that the whole of the CA case is now moot. If this subject of
the trade secret case has been on the web for more than a year easily
discoverable by the most casual attempts, the P's clearly aren't trying to
keep this a secret they're just trying to frighten people to defend their
licensing scheme.
"All your base are now belong to us." Game over!
John Zulauf
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:29:00 -0800
From: Seth David Schoen <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
John Young writes:
> Sorry to belabor this point, but the Hoy file did not contain DeCSS.
> The only DeCSS-related items were two brief DeCSS introductory
> notes (Exhibit A), but not the DeCSS code itself. The only code in the
> doc (Exhibit B) was that of CSS, mislabeled in handwriting
> "DeCSS," but titled in print "CSSscrambleT.txt".
I'm a little skeptical of that because that code bears a number of
similarities to the descramble code hosted in Professor Touretzky's
Gallery, including function and variable names (im1, im2, sec,
csstab1..5, and so on).
The DMCA makes me fear to post here excerpts of the two in order to
discuss whether or not they have the same origin. And I think that's
lovely example number one billion of the DMCA's adverse effects on
speech which has no connection to "circumvention".
I would _like_ to quote the C code from the Gallery and I would _like_
to quote the Hoy declaration you formerly published in support of an
argument the Hoy was quoting some version of DeCSS or another
implementation that was based on DeCSS -- the "CSSscrambleT.txt"
filename notwithstanding. But I'm afraid for the legal consequences
if I do that.
So all I can do is say that it looks to me like the Hoy declaration
was actually quoting a version of DeCSS, and if you compare it with
the descramble code in Touretzky's gallery, you will observe many
similarities. I don't think that Hoy was actually quoting CSS
reference implementations, but of course we could always ask him.
--
Seth David Schoen <[email protected]> | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
From: "John Zulauf" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:01:51 -0700
Seth David Schoen Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 11:29 AM
> So all I can do is say that it looks to me like the Hoy declaration
> was actually quoting a version of DeCSS, and if you compare it with
> the descramble code in Touretzky's gallery, you will observe many
> similarities. I don't think that Hoy was actually quoting CSS
> reference implementations, but of course we could always ask him.
so we have Hoy on the record as citing DeCSS as CSS. Could this be useful?
If DeCSS is CSS how can it be a circumvention of CSS. "This is the key to
my house -- it circumvent the key to my house." Doesn't fly logically.
If DeCSS is CSS are the same, then how can only one be illegal. If a=b and
b=legal, a=legal or the opposite. Thus either DeCSS cannot be banned, or
CSS must be.
Hmmm...
jz
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:52:53 -0800
From: Seth David Schoen <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
John Zulauf writes:
> so we have Hoy on the record as citing DeCSS as CSS. Could this be useful?
>
> If DeCSS is CSS how can it be a circumvention of CSS. "This is the key to
> my house -- it circumvent the key to my house." Doesn't fly logically.
>
> If DeCSS is CSS are the same, then how can only one be illegal. If a=b and
> b=legal, a=legal or the opposite. Thus either DeCSS cannot be banned, or
> CSS must be.
CSS is a _system_, not a program. Think of it like Blowfish or DES or
RC4 or a file format or protocol.
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 15:50:46 -0500
To: [email protected]
From: John Young <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
Seth is correct that the Hoy Reply CSS code matches
the first listed code on Dave Touretzky's DeCSS Gallery.
I've just compared the two and they appear to be the same.
However, I've also reviewed Frank Stevenson's implementation,
from which Dave got the code, and several permutations by
others which appeared on the LiViD list. And, correct me if
I'm wrong, the CSS code is used within nearly all CSS
descramblers, including the aboriginal DeCSS, but each
requires more than the CSS descrambler to function as
a "DeCSS."
So, to term the CSS code DeCSS does not appear to
be accurate, unless you believe the css-descrambler is
"DeCSS" no matter how the descrambling is done outside
the control of the CSS-control crowd. Hmm, I think that is
exactly what the Damn-DeCSS-mob is screeching, or
more politely, bluffing.
OK, so for the damners DeCSS is a generic euphemism,
as well as a fit-all epithet, ready for camouflaging whatever
deliberate weakness was designed into CSS so that DMCA
anti-circumvention generosity could be narrowed in
court.
From: D
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
Subject: http://cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:58:05 -0800
I was trying to recall exactly what was in the
file after seeing that you had replaced it.
It turns out my recollection was more or less
correct. I found more than a thousand copies of
the webpage with google.com (3,120, I imagine
a good chunk are discussion on how stupid it was
letting the "trade secrets" into a public record
(even if it was later sealed).
I seem to recall that the Federal government and
public law don't allow information that can be
found in the public domain to be classified. Sort
of a doctrine of once public, always...
I guess some lawyers need to jack up their billable
hours, or perhaps this is how the MPAA will show
economic loss - paying for lawyers fighting windmills.
I am kind of puzzled about the legal thinking behind
demanding you take down a document that you acquired
from a publically accessible site. The openlaw dvd
discussion seems to imply that the current court action
is separate from the trade secret issue.
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 23:51:11 +0100
From: Jon Lech Johansen <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 10:38:32PM +0100, Tom ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 11:53:55AM -0600, Eric Seppanen wrote:
> > You might want to check http://free-dvd.org.lu/ , they have a file "all
> > player keys" at http://free-dvd.org.lu/random-numbers.txt . I have no
> > idea if they're for real.
> >
> > Otherwise, you could try looking in the DeCSS source; there's supposed to
> > be a key in there somewhere, though I can't seem to find it.
>
> AFAIK only the first release had the xing player key build-in. later
> releases brute-forced the key with frank's divide&conquer attack.
DeCSS has never contained any code which cracks the CSS algorithm.
The first release contained 1 player key, while the last release
contained 2 player keys. The CSS implementation in both of these
were identical.
--
Jon Johansen
nanocrew.net
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:49:50 -0800
From: Seth David Schoen <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: March 2001: DVD Hoy Reply Demand Letter
John Young writes:
> So, to term the CSS code DeCSS does not appear to
> be accurate, unless you believe the css-descrambler is
> "DeCSS" no matter how the descrambling is done outside
> the control of the CSS-control crowd. Hmm, I think that is
> exactly what the Damn-DeCSS-mob is screeching, or
> more politely, bluffing.
I agree entirely, and I think your earlier point that this declaration
does not contain a circumvention device is correct for two reasons:
(1) Software is not a device; only a machine instructed by software is
a device.
(2) (More concretely.) The code in the declaration is not complete
and you can't possibly run it by itself or use it by itself to decrypt
DVDs. On the other hand, you can read it to understand part of how
DVDs are decrypted.
The point that I think is important is that the Hoy declaration does
not contain a copy of any CSS implementation originally created or
published by the DVD CCA.
> OK, so for the damners DeCSS is a generic euphemism,
> as well as a fit-all epithet, ready for camouflaging whatever
> deliberate weakness was designed into CSS so that DMCA
> anti-circumvention generosity could be narrowed in
> court.
I warned here some months ago that calling all DVD descrambling code
"DeCSS" (as studios, courts, and activists who should know better have
done) is ridiculous. "DeCSS" is a specific program written by
specific people at a specific time.
Other programs with similar or analogous functions or which
incorporate insights from DeCSS _are not DeCSS_. The descramble code
by Derek Fawcus is definitely not DeCSS, yet it was _that_ code which
Copyleft published on their "DeCSS" t-shirt.
And any number of mirror sites which offer the original Fawcus code, or
libcss or something, invite us to "download DeCSS" when that's not
what they're providing. That is just a factual error.
We need to say that things other than DeCSS are not DeCSS. I think
even defense lawyers are getting this wrong.
--
Seth David Schoen <[email protected]> | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5