First Release Of Open-Source Blu-Ray Library

[Ex-Cyber]

And to head off this argument at the pass: DMCA does use the phrase "effectively controls access", but it merely means "has the effect of controlling access" (which is defined elsewhere in the bill in very broad terms), not "does a good job of controlling access".

[smitty3268]

I should also mention that libdvdcss might not be a DMCA violation since it is not cracking anything. DVD CSS was not meant as "content protection", it was intended to make sure that DVD players had to pay licensing fees to the DVD Forum and therefore also support User Backstabbing Operations.

Hollywood disagrees, and has previously sued people under this argument. It doesn't matter whether encryption is effective or not, the law only says that it must be present.

libdvdcss doesn't crack anything, it simply shotguns the weak 40 bit cipher with random possible keys until one works

LOL, that's the very definition of cracking.

[bwat47]

When SOPA passes (and some form of it will), the United States will probably attack VLC through the ITA and do a wikileak's style defunding blockade by not allowing credit card, paypal, etc. donations to VLC. we'll see if this is an "American" problem then.

SOPA probably won't pass, the whole thing is a facade so we don't notice the less extreme (but still bad ) PIPA.

[cruiseoveride]

So does this little library have an SVM built in?

[AnonymousCoward]

Go ahead and explain where France's Three Strikes law came from. It wasn't to protect any industry in France.

LOL. You seem to have the idea that everything revolves around the USA. So this may come as a surprise to you, but France does have its own tv shows, writers, directors, movies and musicians. And yes this law is there to protect their own industry.

[DaemonFC]

They are a french nonprofit - the laws of the USA do not apply to them. What you believe will happen with SOPA does not affect whether they are breaking any laws today.

The US government is shutting down foreign sites now. It happened a few days ago, when they shut down some Korean video sharing sites.

ICE doesn't seem to care where they operate. France has been all too eager to assist the US "MAFIAA" right down to the three strikes and you're booted off the internet law. I'm not sure how safe being in France makes them. They're probably safe until the US government either asks France to do something about them or until the US government acts unilaterally by deleting or seizing the VLC domain names and blocking financial contributions from Americans.

Someone mentioned cash in the mail a few posts back. The funny thing is that with all the "terrorism" laws, the US government can simply state that you're not allowed to donate to someone they don't like, and if you do, you've broken the law.

Go ahead and explain where France's Three Strikes law came from. It wasn't to protect any industry in France.

[archibald]

They are a french nonprofit - the laws of the USA do not apply to them. What you believe will happen with SOPA does not affect whether they are breaking any laws today.

[DaemonFC]

Are you able to point out a single law that VLC is currently breaking? Not a law that you believe will come into force, a law that is currently in place and applies to them. You stated that they do not care about the law: please provide evidence for that or take back your accusation.

Sure. US law says that every patent they infringe upon must have a per user license fee paid. Since this isn't being paid, I'm sure that ICE will deal with them eventually. Courts already aren't waiting for SOPA to come into effect, and neither is ICE. They both seem to act like it's already the law now. Money gets what money wants. Eventually VLC's website might just be the ICE logo.

[archibald]

Run away!

Regroup.

Come back with something not quite as bad that won't draw this level of criticism.

Spend next 5 years turning it into SOPA through amendments to unrelated laws.

Are you able to point out a single law that VLC is currently breaking? Not a law that you believe will come into force, a law that is currently in place and applies to them. You stated that they do not care about the law: please provide evidence for that or take back your accusation.

[DaemonFC]

what!
you really should try keeping up with current world news you know.... the key points just for you DaemonFC

"the European Parliament has adopted a resolution against SOPA"
"Update: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has spoken out against SOPA. Update II: Tumbler's anti-SOPA message on their website generated almost 90000 (!) phone calls to representatives. Amazing."

"the European Parliament has adopted a resolution against SOPA

. Technically,

the resolution

stresses the importance of - among other things - "the need to protect the integrity of the global internet and freedom of communication by refraining from unilateral measures to revoke IP addresses or domain names".

The resolution is directed at the United States, and while SOPA is not mentioned, it's pretty clear what the European Parliament is referring to.

In addition, the European Parliament also adopted a resolution stating that net neutrality should be part of EU law. True, unconditional net neutrality currently only exists in Chile (first!) and The Netherlands (second!), but if it would be enshrined in EU law, it would become part of many, many more European countries...."

http://www.osnews.com/story/25345

posted by Thom Holwerda on Thu 17th Nov 2011 23:20 UTC

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/european-high-court-rejects-internet-traffic-filtering-as-violation-of-fundamental-rights.ars
"European high court rejects Internet traffic filtering as violation of fundamental rights

By Sean Gallagher | Published 16 days ago
While Thanksgiving is an American holiday, internet service providers and users in Europe had reason to give thanks yesterday.

The highest court in the European Union overturned a ruling that would have forced a Belgian ISP to preemptively filter Internet traffic to prevent the unauthorized sharing of music files.

The European Court of Justice overturned a ruling by a Belgian court in a suit brought by the Belgian Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers (SABAM). SABAM filed it against Scarlet Extended over alleged illegal peer-to-peer filesharing by Scarlet's customers. That 2007 ruling required Scarlet to filter traffic on its network, so that it could identify and block illegal peer to peer filesharing traffic. It was based on an interpretation of Belgian copyright laws that put the burden of enforcement on ISPs. ....."
....
"... In its ruling, The Court of Justice upheld the right of copyright holders to file injunctions against intermediaries over illegal file sharing. But it struck down the provisions of the Belgian court ruling that required filtering, finding that the filtering provisions violated European Union e-commerce laws, and infringed on the rights of Scarlet and its customers.

The broad monitoring required to filter file-sharing would "infringe the fundamental rights of [Scarlet's] customers, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their right to receive or impart information, which are rights safeguarded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU," the court panel wrote."

Run away!

Regroup.

Come back with something not quite as bad that won't draw this level of criticism.

Spend next 5 years turning it into SOPA through amendments to unrelated laws.