Re: I want to try something for freedom.
I think the DeCSS suit has less to do with reverse engineering of the
algorithms than it has to do with a loss of control of distribution. With
regional zones effectively disabled, users in other zones are able to buy
dvds from the States and view them before they are released in their zone
(ie. Europe, Asia, wherever). Besides that, aren't there hardware licensing
and fees issues as well?
Robert Varga <firstname.lastname@example.org> on 11/02/2000 03:14:18 AM
To: Alexander Hvostov <email@example.com>
cc: Patrick Maheral <pmaheral@AAI.ca>, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Subject: Re: I want to try something for freedom.
Yes, but it is in every aspect similar to what the person who wrote the
first letter in this thread wants to do or is advised to do, namely to
reverse-engineer the operation of a working system which is developed only
for win* and based on proprietary algorithms. That's exactly the same what
the person writing the DeCSS has done. Hence the company creating the
authentication software would probably sue the person writing the first
letter and could expect that the result would be the same as the DeCSS
lawsuit, and it is currently lost. If this happens before the DeCSS
lawsuit is finished in the Supreme Court, then the result will be likely
the same as the first stages of the DeCSS lawsuit, meaning probably lost.
This is only my two-pence of course, but I could not stand not to point
out the similarities between the two situation.
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> Keep in mind that case is in appeal, and is quite likely to wind up in
> Supreme Court. It is, in every way I can imagine, a Constitutional case,
> and has every reason to be heard by the Supreme Court. I hope the Supreme
> Court Justices agree...
> PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
> EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.12
> GCS/CM>CC/IT d- s:+ a16 C++(++++)>$ UL++++>$ P--- L++>++$ E+ W+(-) N+ o?
> !O !M !V PS+(++)>+ PE-(--) Y+>+ PGP t+>++ !5 X-- R>++ tv(+) b+(++) DI(+)
> G>+++ e--> h! !r y>+++
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Robert Varga wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Patrick Maheral wrote:
> > > On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> > > > Penguin,
> > > >
> > > > Because the patents and IP on your radio expired a long time ago.
> > > > on the algorithms haven't. :)
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Isn't there a provision in American (or Canadian) law that allows
> > > engineering (not disassembling code) for interoperability purposes?
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > In the DeCSS (2600.org vs. MPAA) lawsuit this law did not protect the
> > author of DeCSS and 2600.org from losing the suit, no matter that they
> > tried to defend referring on this law.
> > Regards,
> > Robert Varga
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact