From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Freedom of speech (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Omigosh!!! It has been 7 months since this case is decided and this article is still not updated... O well 'tis rectified now! -- EmperorBMA|話す 01:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the program is illegal, why is there an image of it sitting right on Wikipedia? Pingveno

The image only shows one part of the program. Without the rest, it can't work. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 12:58, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
If you're interested, here is the original anonymous C source

I probably shouldn't have posted that (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can post it, don't you want to own your own DVD's? You can buy þem, you can play þem, but you can't back þem up. Økokrim and RIAA are just making life harder for lawful people - þose who want to break þe law will break þe law, þe rest (who obey þe law) will only get a more restricted life. Anti-piracy kills music. Takk for at du har plassert Nord-Norge på kartet, Jon!

Making more NPOV[edit]

I have toned down the section where the article parrots the old "CSS doesn't stop piracy" argument by pointing out that CSS does stop casual copies of DVDs to DVD+/-R blanks. Samboy 17:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the act of copying a DVD to DVD-R is perfectly legal. Piracy involves stealing and/or distribution of stolen goods. CSS has certainly been proven not to prevent piracy. What it does do is prevent the consumer from their legal right to make a personal copy. --Thoric 22:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Under the WIPO Copyright Treaty, it is illegal to bypass copyright protection, or to distribute something that's meant to do so. This partially supercedes previous personal-copy laws. The treaty is implemented in the U.S. with the DMCA, in the EU with the EUCD, and in various other places with other laws. Most of the world signed the WCT. There's no place for clear-cut violations of it on Wikipedia. —Simetrical (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Where do you see a "clear-cut violation"? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I admit, there isn't one. There is a clear violation of both the DMCA (see subparagraphs (a)(1)(A) and (a)(2)-(3)) and the EUCD (similar language there). But as long as the illegality in those countries is noted with the links, I have to agree that places like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (which might not have similar restrictions) as well as non-English-speaking countries are enough to justify allowing the inclusion of the link with appropriate notices. —Simetrical (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Remove flamewar history[edit]

I believe the section about the flamewar over DeCSS licensing is very much out of place. I'll remove it soon. DonDiego 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty material: DeCSS was initally a closed source microsoft windows application... the argument the it was itself created to play content under Linux could only be considered suspect at best. The discussion about the argument over the GPL is important because it shows the context. Jon was not liked by the folks working on Livid because his premature relaease of a tool only useful for ripping (and not linux playback) sabotaged their efforts.... Later they were forced to help defend his actions because the fate of all CSS decryption code had become inexorably tied to Jon. --Gmaxwell 18:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Technology and derived works[edit]

"Technology and derived works" makes it absolutely clear that DeCSS aids video "pirates". It doesn't. The CSS description keys and code are available in any "licensed" player, and as a result, because many licensed players don't produce an analog output- the output can be copied trivially- and even prior to DeCSS there were (and are) a number of programs that do this. These were frequently marketed as DVD "backup" utilities. The article does (vaguely) mention that mass-production-pirates aren't encumbered at all- but doesn't make this clear.

DeCSS has much more value in producing unlicensed players- which may or many not be illegal- it wasn't at the time DeCSS was published (in the US), and it isn't in most countries- and moreover, if anyone realized that CSS was about protecting player licenses, and not about protecting pirates, it might be easier to get this point across:

Some systems, places, countries, states, and operating systems, simply do not have a licensed player to choose from. None is sold, and no licenses are even being offered. DeCSS is most useful here as it makes playing legally purchased (and owned) DVDs playable without having to purchase a so-called licensed player. 21:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

On the speed of bruteforcing[edit]

It might have taken a personal computer "less than 24 hours" to entirely bruteforce the CSS algorithm's keyspace in 1999, but today's computers (and what I gather is an improved key-finding technique) can find a working disk and/or player key in a matter of seconds even if no pre-existing key is present. It might thus be prudent to note that CSS, today, is little more than a really minor speedbump to DVD players that have no dedicated player key. -- 07:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lossless digital image copying of DVDs without [decryption][edit]

While this is obviously physically possible and is arguably common knowledge, does anyone have a reference to back up this statement? The mostly commonly available consumer or 'prosumer' devices license their CSS use. I am having trouble finding a manufacturer that makes professional DVD duplication devices that specifies functioning in this way. Anyone? --Anonymous 03:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Philips made or used to make one, once.
This is a very easy task with any kind of data recovery application. ddrescue is a good example which I have used before under Linux. You simply copy the disk bitwise to an image file. This is very useful for recovering data from damaged disks including crashed hard disks. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC).


The CSS stripping program had been specifically created to bait the MPAA in this manner.[citation needed]

The citation is in reference 9, which is the site of the original author and explicitly states the intent just as described. -- 08:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What was he charged with?[edit]

The paragraph on the Norwegin trial needs to mention what exactly he was charged with. I moved the mention of the Norwegian criminal code to the first sentence, but this could be wrong since I can't tell from the article whether the appeals court ordered a re-trial of the original or new charges. Can someone one knows more about the case please clear this up...kind of an essential fact for the article. Padraic 15:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's two years later, and yes it needs a lot of expansion. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Time taken[edit]

a high-end home computer in 1999 running optimized code could brute-force it within 24 hours, and modern computers can now brute-force it in a few seconds or less

This claim seems incomplete or at least strange. First what's a modern computer? Second if we take a few seconds to mean 10 seconds, this implies a 8640x improvement in speed. Even an 6 core Core i7 is not going to be close to 8640x faster then a 1999 high end computer (say a Pentium 3 550mhz) in general terms. It's possible it would be that much faster in certain areas, particularly if it's using the GPU if that's possible for the function, or perhaps the code is just much improved but in any case, this claim needs sourcing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition to computers becoming faster, and supporting advanced vectorisation, key scanning algorithms have also improved dramatically. I'd probably expect a 30-50x increase in performance of the same algorithm on my new Intel i7-2700k vs. my old AMD Duron 1GHz. Given the advances in the brute-forcing algorithms too, an 8640x improvement is more than reasonable. I never tried to bruteforce DVDs on my old Duron PC [I still used VHS tapes back then], but my i7 will munch the anti-backup protection on a DVD in under a minute. (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)