Linux Today: Linux News On Internet Time.

Andre Hedrick: "I want [to] make it REAL-CLEAR, to the CPRM bone-heads!"

Mar 04, 2001, 03:36 (20 Talkback[s])
(Other stories by Andre Hedrick)
Subject: Re: [temp t13] Re: FW: Open Letter to NCITS T13 on Access 
Control s
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 13:56:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Andre Hedrick <t13@linux-ide.org>
To: "'t13@tgi.com'" <t13@tgi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


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
> protection 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 you may be a little late with a showdown on standardizing the
> concept.  The last I heard, T10 has already incorporated the whole
> thing into MMC.  The biggest venue for Hollywood is currently DVD. 
> To the best of my knowledge, this is already a done deal.  You have
> been right on target with many of your legal calls.  I am not a
> legal guy, but I think this changes the picture a little 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
> implementing CPRM will leave a proprietary back door for
> re-enabling.  They are concerned 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
 class action lawsuit against the drive maker, the oem, and every
 dirty-rotten-!@#$% that damages linux-os and my-reputation as an

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

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 lawlessness.

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 world.


Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

Related Stories: