Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BoBB

DVD John not the guy he claims to be?

4 posts in this topic

Yikes. Well I certainly don't always believe what I read but that certainly changed my opinion of jon johansen. Copying GPLed code and claiming it to be your own isn't cool.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never believe everything you read. I looked at the site a little more and found this text as well...

http://www.chscene.ch/ccc/decss/dvdtruth.txt

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Harvard Law's Open Law site, DoD member Derek Fawcus did have heated correspondence with Jon Johansen a member of MoRE in the month of October accross the LiVid-Mailinglist.

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0