[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRE: [temp t13] Re: FW: Open Letter to NCITS T13 on Access Control s

    I think We've gone out-of-bounds on this one. None of us are
    lawyers, and nobody can predict what is happening. Personally, I do not see
    the difference between placing a GUID in the vendor specific are or placing
    a GUID in the E0112r1 area. Both places are set aside for people to do
    things without bringing them to standards. The only significant piece that
    E0112r1 brings to the table is that a specific set of command codes can be
    re-used without having a secret society setup the rules.

    My opinion is that lawyers can make a case for virtually anything.
    Nothing is fool-proof and there are no guarantees. Ultimately it ends up in
    the hands of judges or in the hands of the consumers. I am more than
    willing to work up a better understanding of the legal issues off-line.

    Phoenix Technologies LTD
    Curtis E. Stevens
    135 Technology Dr.
    Irvine, Ca. 92618

    Phone: (949) 790-2121
    Fax: (949) 790-2006
    Internet: Curtis_Stevens@Phoenix.COM

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Andre Hedrick []
    Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 1:57 PM
    To: ''
    Subject: [temp t13] Re: FW: Open Letter to NCITS T13 on Access
    Control s

    ** This is the quasi-official and semi-temporary T13 email list server. **


    On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Curtis Stevens wrote:

    > ** This is the quasi-official and semi-temporary T13 email list server.
    > Andre
    > One of the things that my proposal attempts to do is remove the
    > legal issues associated with standardizing a technology like copy
    > from T13 and place it back on the device vendors. E0112r1 places T13 in a

    Curtis, I realize your point but can you be sure that your GUID will not
    grant them any legal coverage for damages caused by this garbage? I want
    everyone to have the opportunity to rip the money out of these greedy
    dirt-bags back pockets, when they end up harming the public.

    > position where technologies like CPRM are not disclosed to T13. I think
    > may be a little late with a showdown on standardizing the concept. The
    > I heard, T10 has already incorporated the whole thing into MMC. The
    > venue for Hollywood is currently DVD. To the best of my knowledge, this
    > already a done deal. You have been right on target with many of your
    > calls. I am not a legal guy, but I think this changes the picture a
    > bit.
    > I can not comment on what Phoenix may do with DCO or SET FEATURES.
    > I do expect that even if they use E01112r0 that device vendors
    > CPRM will leave a proprietary back door for re-enabling. They are
    > about viruses, applications, and competing copy protection technology
    > disabling CPRM against the users will.

    Curtis, this is not directed at you or your company.

    Well I want it make it REAL-CLEAR, to the CPRM bone-heads!

    If Linux-OS disables CPRM and it is RE-ENABLED by the "REAL-ROGUE-JAVA" or
    "LICENSED-APPLICATION-ON-THE-NET" I will file a class action lawsuit
    against the drive maker, the oem, and every dirty-rotten-!@#$% that
    damages linux-os and my-reputation as an os-writer.

    You can bet your sweet-bippy that I will have a party because of the
    destructive damage to the OS and file-systems this pile of crap will
    cause in the world of business! This has just lit the fire under me to
    complete and publish the full-taskfile parser and jammer to this crap.

    Curtis, this has nothing to do with your proposal. It has everything to
    do with the greedy little !@#$%^&*() that are going to violate the
    ownership rights of products and the use of those products.

    I have made arrangements to speak with both of California's Senators and
    seeking the audience with the Senators that sponsored DMCA and will
    question their lack of foresight on the issue. If the MPAA and SDMI can
    go dork with legal issues then so can the Penguin! I will inform them
    that I have a method to destroy the functionality of CPRM without
    violating the DMCA. I will publish it without repsect for any laws passed
    against me. If I can not publish in the USA, I will publish in another
    country that doesn't honor copy protection and, just as there is no way to
    stop the CPRM people, there is nothing that can be done to stop me.

    I will create the perfect anal-retentive-host-driver. These CPRM
    designers will not play by the rules that if a host turns off a feature
    that it is to stay off, thus I will now destroy the feature by not
    allowing it to be accessed. Only because they have decided to do gross,
    anti-social, and dishonorable things like you have stated (violate the
    will of the HOST) they will do, is the reason that lawlessness begets

    Oh, against better judgement, I have included the linux-kernel-mail-list.
    Just so my world will know and help protect me and Linux from the CPRM


    Andre Hedrick
    Linux ATA Development

    If you have any questions or wish to unsubscribe send a
    message to Hale Landis, To post to
    this list server send your message to

    For questions concerning Thistle Grove Industries or TGI's
    list services please send email to

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.027 / U:6.716 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site