Profile: America’s worst president

Let’s take a little trip down memory lane, shall we?.

carterseries_landing.jpg

Profile in Incompetence; A Ten Part Series on the worst President in American History.

In this exclusive 10-part series, Investors Business Daily takes a hard look at Jimmy Carter’s administration and compares it to that of George W. Bush, which Carter has called the worst ever.

Installments will cover the economy, foreign policy, human rights, dealing with dictators, fighting Communism and the Democratic leadership in general during times of war.

The Republicans recent habit of adopting Democrat positions will not reflect well on them 30 years from now.

But as bad as the spending spree of the Republican controlled House, Senate, and Executive Branch may have seemed just a few short months ago (and make no mistake there was more pork than you can shake a stick at!), and as bad as George Bush’s poll ratings are currently (also really, really bad … in the proverbial tank so to speak!), I highly doubt that Carter will soon lose his much deserved title of the worst President in American History.

If ever.

Finnish court rules CSS protection used in DVDs “ineffective”

Via Oikeuden edessä and slashdot:

hd-bluray.JPG

Finnish court rules CSS protection used in DVDs “ineffective”

In an unanimous decision released today, Helsinki District Court ruled that Content Scrambling System (CSS) used in DVD movies is “ineffective”. The decision is the first in Europe to interpret new copyright law amendments that ban the circumvention of “effective technological measures”.

Read the rest here…

It looks like the Helsinki District Court agrees with me regarding the question of whether CSS ever was any type of “Copy Protection” at all.

In a post on February 13th, 2007 I said the following:

arnezami claims to have found it [the “processing key” used to decrypt the DRM on all HD DVD and Blu-Ray Disc films] by simply watching his computer memory, where the secret code simply appeared. So if the code is sitting there in memory, does this even count as a “Hack”?

I think not.

What this means to me is that there never was any real “copy protection” on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray at all. Thus bringing into question whether ACCS is enforceable under the DMCA law.
There is no reverse engineering going on here, the user is simply reading his computers memory for freely available, unencrypted information.

AACS marketers should however be heartily congratulated for harvesting millions from their “marks” (the stupid media companies). AACS always was and still is a masterful example of the big con.

09 f9: A Legal Primer … or … What is the AACS-LA’s Legal argument?

The AACS-LA made some news yesterday. Read about some of it here, here, and here, as well as the following from the EFF Deep Links section:

What is the AACS-LA’s argument? In its takedown letters, the AACS-LA claims that hosting the key violates the DMCA’s ban on trafficking in circumvention devices. The DMCA provides that:
No person shall … offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that that –

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

The AACS-LA presumably would argue that the key is a “component” or “part” of a “technology” that circumvents AACS. Moreover, AACS-LA would likely argue that the key was “primarily … produced” to circumvent AACS, that is has no other commercially significant purpose, and that it is being “marketed” for use in a circumvention technology. The takedown letters seem to take the position that both the poster and the hosting provider are engaged in “trafficking.”

The AACS-LA will also doubtless point to the DMCA cases brought against 2600 magazine for posting the DeCSS code back in 2000 (EFF was counsel to the defendant). In that case, both the district court and court of appeals concluded that posting DeCSS to a website violated the DMCA.

Read it all.

“the key is a “component” or “part” of a “technology” that circumvents AACS.”
Questionable, as the key is freely readable in plain text residing in your computer’s RAM when you insert a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray Disk.

“the key was “primarily … produced” to circumvent AACS, that is has no other commercially significant purpose, and that it is being “marketed” for use in a circumvention technology.”

The key was “primarily … produced” to playback legally obtained and owned HD content. It was later discovered sitting in RAM with no obfuscation whatsoever, from there it was copied and pasted to various documents around the tubes of the internet. It was “Produced” by the AACS.

So if you have no Ads and make no money posting the number … the question becomes, “Is the number actually marketed?”

“both the poster and the hosting provider are engaged in “trafficking.”

Again as the key was not properly implemented to begin with, this point would be moot.

But the precedent lies with the content providers from past decisions, and it’s doubtful that a court would side against them in this case.

My question is, is yesterday’s impromptu “DRM Revolt” just the tip of the civil disobedience iceberg?