DVD John not the guy he claims to be?
Posted 25 January 2003 - 04:51 PM
This is an "article" about the "truth" behind DeCSS and jon johansen. Personally i dont believe it. I checked the livid mailing list archives but there is nothing before april 2000. Anyone here know the actualy truth?
Posted 25 January 2003 - 05:12 PM
Posted 26 January 2003 - 02:11 AM
All interesting claims, but nothing more than claims. For that matter even the mass media accusations are simply claims. Which to beleive?
And frankly, does it matter?
Posted 26 January 2003 - 06:30 AM
What the author of the "decsstruth.txt" leaves out is (as detailed here):
* Johansen released CSS descrambling algorithms to Fawcus in September 1999.
* Johansen responded that MoRE had "special permission" to use DoD css-auth code (8 OCT 99).
* Fawcus' cleared Johansen MoRE and the issue of "special permission" (11 OCT 99).
"Derek essentially backs up everything Jon is saying."
The Harvard Open Law sites http://livid.on.openprojects.net for their evidence but this link does not appear to be active.
The point, however, is not the Fawcus-Johansen mailings or incomplete and accusatory "decsstruth.txt". The point, for me is the vilification of Jon Johansen, Derek Fawcus and 2600 by the MPAA.
Johansen was charged with breaking a security device and violating copyright law by writing DeCSS which only decrypts the play of a DVD. The MPAA wants the consumers to use only players they license. They invoke the DMCA so that we have to use their products the way they want us to use them. By doing so they substitute quality for litigation.
If legally purchased DVD's do not play on the platforms we use, they are inadequate. If we can not modify a product we legally purchased we don't really own it. And when the MPAA whacks people over the head with DMCA because they don't like the way we use their product, after receiving their cut from our purchase, they are stealing from us.
BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!