Fwd: [dvd-discuss] DRM and Newspeak

From: Carey Lening (carey@tstonramp.com)
Date: Tue Apr 03 2001 - 15:49:39 PDT


[A great site for finding out if bands allow concert copying -- And a
decent argument explaining why bands do this -- forwarded on from another
list. Oh hi again :) ]-BB

http://www.etree.org
http://btat.wagnerone.com/

>Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:18:43 -0500
>From: John Schulien <jms@uic.edu>
>To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>Subject: [dvd-discuss] DRM and Newspeak
>
> > Unfortunately, Copyright = the right to make and
> > distribute copies. It is really more of a term governing
> > the commercial use than the non-commercial use.
> > The non-commercial use copying is either covered
> > by the "fair use" exception or is prohibited.
>
>It's interesting how the new generation of musicians
>is way ahead of the rest of the music industry on
>this point. For years, musicians treated fans with
>microphones as "the enemy."
>
>When the Grateful Dead decided in the 1980s to deal
>with audience tapers by creating a special taper section
>behind the soundboard, they unwittingly ushered in
>a new generation of bands that made their mark not
>by heavy, expensive promotion by the recording industry,
>but by fans trading concert tapes back and forth, without
>the stigma associated with what used to be called
>"bootlegging."
>
>If you check out the site etree.org, you'll find a large
>list of bands that sanction taping. Some are big name
>bands, some are relatively unknown, and many are
>small, unsigned bands, hoping to build a strong fan
>base on their own, without having to sign a one-sided
>contract with a record label where they lose all their
>profits and give up their copyrights. In general,
>they are each succeeding on a certain level, in a
>way that can only be appreciated by listening to a
>rabid fan describing how he "only listens to The Disco
>Biscuits and only trades their tapes, and went to
>every show on their last tour, and do you want to
>check out a Disco Biscuits tape?" Having heard
>the band, I declined, but the point was not lost.
>
>There's also a strong ethic among tape traders that
>trading studio albums is wrong, so it turns out that
>authorizing live concert recording doesn't translate
>into bootlegging of studio albums, or the sale of
>those concert tapes. Quite the opposite,
>in fact. Fans of bands that allow taping are very
>appreciative of the opportunity, and have in many
>cases actually turned in stores selling bootlegs of
>their favorite band to their lawyers, because they
>don't want the band to decide to stop allowing
>taping because people are abusing the privilege.
>
>What these bands have done is successfully
>redefined the copyright interest -- the legitimate
>copyright interest is supposed to be commercial.
>Copyright is supposed to support commerce. If
>you're selling a product, copyright is supposed to
>prevent people from competing with you on that
>product. These bands understand that their concerts
>are a different form of commerce -- they sell tickets
>to concerts, not recordings of concerts.
>
>The recording industry, on the other hand, is
>pushing in the opposite direction. In the "No
>Electronic Theft" act, the music industry got
>Congress to modify the definition of "financial gain":
>
> > 17 USC 101. Definitions
> >
> > Add the following between "display" and "fixed":
> >
> > The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or
> > expectation of receipt, of anything of value,
> > including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
>
>thus bringing the law even further out of sync
>with the emerging practice of authorizing audience
>taping, and completely blurring the lines between
>commercial and non-commercial use of works.
>
>Of course, when you blur the lines between what
>is moral and what is legal, many things can
>happen. People can decide that the two blurred
>activities (bootlegging -- selling music, and
>sharing -- trading music) are both wrong, as the
>music industry wants, or they can decide that
>neither are wrong, and that the law is wrong.
>
>If the next generation decides that the copyright
>laws are oppressive and useless, and cast them
>off, the recording and motion picture industries
>will have no one but themselves to blame.
>
>On the other hand, Phish was filling basketball
>arenas before they had a single top-40 song,
>which supports the thesis that copyright is
>necessary for a recording industry to exist, but
>not for musicians to get paid.
>
>Rant off :)

Perl is amazing...

Usage:
qrpff 153 2 8 105 225 /mnt/dvd/VOB_FILE_NAME | extract_mpeg2 | mpeg2_dec -

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
# 531-byte qrpff-fast, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz <sipb-iap-dvd@mit.edu>
# MPEG 2 PS VOB file on stdin -> descrambled output on stdout
# arguments: title key bytes in least to most-significant order
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;$t=255;@t=map{$_%16or$t^=$c^=(

$m=(11,10,116,100,11,122,20,100)[$_/16%8])&110;$t^=(72,@z=(64,72,$a^=12*($_%16
-2?0:$m&17)),$b^=$_%64?12:0,@z)[$_%8]}(16..271);if((@a=unx"C*",$_)[20]&48){$h
=5;$_=unxb24,join"",@b=map{xB8,unxb8,chr($_^$a[--$h+84])}@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$
d=unxV,xb25,$_;$e=256|(ord$b[4])<<9|ord$b[3];$d=$d>>8^($f=$t&($d>>12^$d>>4^
$d^$d/8))<<17,$e=$e>>8^($t&($g=($q=$e>>14&7^$e)^$q*8^$q<<6))<<9,$_=$t[$_]^
(($h>>=8)+=$f+(~$g&$t))for@a[128..$#a]}print+x"C*",@a}';s/x/pack+/g;eval





This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 20:25:29 PDT