Slashdot Mirror

Wildly obnoxious? Alienating people?

Let's take a look at what happened. This "second round-table discussion" started at a 15 to 1 disadvantage against the public. By one reporter's count, it ended up being 23 to 1.

What was this panel really about? If you understand American politics, it was about one thing. Providing cover for the asses of US Representatives for votes on pending legislation that was written by, and paid for by the Entertainment Cartel. That's it. Plain and simple.

We tried everything we could to get representatives on the panel. We tried with the panel organizer. We tried with the Commerce Committee contacts. We tried with local legislators. Nothing worked. As the EFF lawyer stated, they were told specifically not to come to the hearing. The public was specifically being shut out of that "round-table"

There was one public representative on the panel, and except for a couple of sentences, he kept his mouth shut for the duration of the hearing.

Let's examine what happened that day, July 17, 2002. Representatives from Disney, Vivendi, Intel, IBM, MPAA, ContentGuard, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, EMI, and others sat around at a table, and patted each other on the back.

But wait. Let's start just a little earlier. Prior to the start of the "public round-table discussion", we were informed that we were not going to be permitted into the room. It was a closed meeting. We had to point out to the Committee reps that it was a PUBLIC meeting, and they couldn't bar us. We even had to find a place to download and print a copy of their announcement to show to them. When they realized that we would have printed proof that it was a public meeting, they relented, and said they would allow us to enter the meeting room.

The meeting started with a statement from the Commerce Sub-Committee Chair, and went around the table, with panel members making their introductions, and then making brief statements. Jack Valenti, who apparently was alerted to our website that listed the event (along with Jack Valenti notable quotables, which included some of his outrageous past statements, such as: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --
1982"") pre-empted the criticism by saying that he was known for using colorful language in the past in order to get his point across.

We were "informed" of the format of the hearing, that no statements from outside the panelists would be taken. So we could not get a seat at the panel, and we could not comment from the audience.

So Jack enlightened us on how he worked in the Johnson Administration to make the world better. And other things. And so it went. Then we were shown a ridiculously funny screen (probably a power point page) that showed the dozens of groups, and dozens of encrypting/drm/technological schemes to control content. From there, others made their introductions, and made their statements. One of Jack's early statements said something to the effect of (without actually naming the public) the public's view being noise, and a distraction, and that he puts these views, and this noise, out of his mind, as should they all, if they are to get anything done on this issue.

Up to that point, the audience was fairly quiet, but we laughed when the more outrageous statements were made. There were plenty to go around. Even the dude from Phillips, and another tech guy (Intel I believe) got into it with Jack Valenti on a number of occasions. But up to this point, there was really only laughter and occasional gasps from the audience at some of the statements.

About halfway through the proceedings, after having listened to numerous inflammatory statements made by Jack, and by others from the Entertainment Cartel, Jack started to get more intense in his statements. He compared fair use rights and file trading to a burglar using a skeleton key to rob all the houses in the neighborhood. He really said that.

I let that one slide off me. But after an exchange between Jack Valenti and Big IT where it got a little heated, Jack cooled off a bit, and then made a statement saying that the moving industry, and the IT industry needed to get together with legislators to write legislation to stop all the theft. I had enough. I stood up, and in a voice loud enough to be heard from the back of the room, I said "what about the public?" Paraphrasing myself (I don't have the transcripts yet), I said that the public was not being represented on the panel, the public is the true stakeholder on this topic, where are the public voices? I said this in a loud enough voice to be heard from the back of a large room. Was I yelling? I don't know. I know that I was speaking loud enough to be heard. That's it. Ask others.

What was Jack Valenti's reaction? He did something that shows he is a very astute individual when it comes to testifying in Congress. He continued talking. He talked right over me. He had the microphone. His voice, speaking directly into the microphone, not my voice from the back of a large meeting room, was being recorded. But the chair wouldn't have it. He interrupted me, and was telling me to sit down and be quiet. No comments were allowed. But Jack, knowing the press was there, turned an interruption of his speech into a chance to look good. He said that if I allowed him to finish his statement, he would allow me to respond. The chair tried to shut me up, but when I heard Jack say that, I sat down, and he finished his statement. Then, before I could give the chair a chance to shut me down, I stood back up, and gave my two cents. I (paraphrasing myself again, from memory) stated that the panel was not representative of the public, the public were the stakeholders, and there needed to be public representatives on the panel. As I stood up to respond, Ruben Safir, Brett Wyncoop, Seth Johnson (who held up his hand for two hours by the end of the meeting waiting to be called on to make a statement) Jay Sulzburger and others stood up, and I introduced Richard Stallman (who had just been awarded an honor by the United Nations) and we tried to get the panel chairman to recogize him to allow him to make a statement. Richard did not stand up, and said nothing. We, from New Yorkers for Fair Use , NYLXS , and several other groups, made the few statements that we were able to squeeze in.

The chair was having none of that. He said that Brett, who was mistakenly recognized earlier as a panelist (it was standing room only, with people standing, sitting on the floor, kneeling, sitting on laps, etc) when he was kneeling near one of the tables, and when he was called on, he made his statement. So the chair said that since Brett had made his short statement, the public had been heard, we had our chance. "We have a structure here!" was said repeatedly by the chair.

So we were told to shut up and sit down. Richard Stallman never said a word at this point. He wasn't given the chance.

After we sat down, Jack Valenti was clearly flustered. The press was present. They had heard the exchange. It would not be good PR for the MPAA. So he made some more astounding statements. He couldn't understand why I was saying the public was not represented on the panel. He was the public. He indicated the guy across from him (the Intel rep, I believe) and said he was the public. He said the Commerce Sub-Committee reps seated at the head of the table were the public, the public was represented.

After that exchange, the "round-table" discussion continued. More statements were made, calling for legislation. A few of the IT reps were against legislating the unknown. The Phillips rep, the Intel rep, and a couple of others were against legislation putting controls into the hardware, without a specific definition of what the controls were. The rep from Listen.com was against the drm legislation in general. He stated repeatedly that he was competing against free P2P, and his company was making money on it. And the IBM rep, the Phillips rep, and one other IT rep stated several times after my outburst/shouting/statement/activism/disruption/al ienation/obnoxiousness (insert preferred word depending on your agenda) that the public needed to be included in the discussion, and was missing from the current panel.

After some more discussion, the panel was asked by the chair to sum up their positions. This is where it got interesting. And this is where you separate the sheep from those who understand politics in America.

This "second round-table discussion" was a fraud. It was designed with one thing in mind. Provide cover for the legislators. The Commerce Committee, and this sub-committee was charged with one thing. Provide cover. This is an election year. Every House of Representatives seat is up for re-election. The US Reps are going through the motions. They are shaking the trees and raking the leaves. The Entertainment cartel already has bills written up by their lawyers. They want these bills passed. And the legislators want the Entertainment Cartel money so they can get re-elected. There is one week left before the summer break. That's this week. After the summer break, the legislators will not have time for these bills. They will be fighting over War legislation, economic legislation, senior issues, environment, and re-election items. And they will be running for re-election. This year will be a tough election. Control of the House and Senate are both up for grabs.

Getting back to the summations, this is where the horseshit started to fly. Starting with the lobbyist for AOL Time Warner (yeah, they actually sent a lobbyist) and continuing with Jack Valenti of MPAA, and Vivendi, and others, the panelists all looked at each other, or their notes, and lied straight into the microphone. They stated that a consensus had been reached. Talks between IT and Entertainment were not enough. Help from legislators, in the form of legislation was needed. They actually stated that a consensus was reached (none was, the Entertainment and IT industries remained far apart, and they admitted that the public needed to be represented), they stated that the panel was in agreement that legislation was needed, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. But the truth didn't matter when they were making these statements. These statements were being made for one reason. They were providing sound bites for legislators to use for their justification later in voting for what will be highly anti-consumer, highly anti-fair use, and highly anti-open source legislation. That's it. They are supplying sound bites and cover for legislators.

It was at this point, when Jack Valenti was trying to sound conciliatory to the IT rep (I think it was the Intel guy again) when Jack summed up by stating that the Entertainment Industry and IT had to get together with Congress to find a solution. It had been a long day at this point, very hot outside, not enough air conditioning inside, and this one slipped by me. But luckily, Richard Stallman caught it. He said aloud (paraphrasing from memory again) "so the IT industry and the entertainment industry are conspiring again to the exclusion of the public" He was completely correct on this, and it was an important point to bring up. It repeated what we had been saying all along, and it pointed out that even after we repeatedly tried to get the public to have a voice in what was happening, that Jack Valenti, and Big IT were in agreement to exclude the public. This was an important point, and it is the only statement that Richard Stallmen made inside the committee room. Everything else that Richard Stallman said, and the rest of us said was made on the steps outside the Commerce Committee building, at our impromptu news conference after.

Upset that your electronic school books expire at the end of the semester? (see nyfairuse.org web site on this one, it's true) Too bad. Upset that you can't back up you music CD to protect against scratches? Too bad. Upset that you'll have to pay a second time for the same song if you want to transfer it from your CD to your Rio? Too bad. We held hearings, the public was represented, a consensus was reached. It's right here in the transcript. At least five people stated that a consensus was reached. Where were you? We held hearings. You should have made your voice heard then. You should have contacted my office. I have no record of you ever contacting me. How was I supposed to know this would happen, you should have told me. I was voting to protect musicians, to help keep them off of welfare...

Cover and sound bites. That's what the hearing was all about.

Toward the end of the hearing, Mike Miron, of ContentGuard, made the most outrageous statement of all. And this one slipped under the radar of the journalists. It was made as people were getting restless, as the meeting was winding up, and others on the panel were starting to pack up. In one breath, he associated kids trading files with spies and terrorists such as Wen Ho Lee, Jonathan Pollard, and Robert Hanson. He stated that P2P networks enable spies and terrorists to upload military secrets to the internet, and that in light of September 11, this must be considered. Having been personally affected by September 11, this is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Anyone who knows anything about the Robert Hanson case knows that he was a highly knowledgeable person on technology, and used his technical skills far beyond what a mere P2P network can provide. Many tools are available to computer users for uploading files, including ftp, sftp, putty, scp, and many others. Other tools, such as PGP, steganograpy, GnuPG, SSH, and others would accomplish much more, and would better hide the tracks of a would be spy or terrorist. Equating kids with spies and terrorists, and using September 11th to provide a sound bite for a Congressman on the DRM issue is appalling. But the Entertainment Cartel will do what it takes to get their bills through.

So the "round-table" was held on July 17, a Wednesday. I'm sure you all saw the wave of bills on DRM, on allowing the Entertainment industry to hack into your computers and destroy files with civil and criminal protections , and on various other issues regarding DRM and Fair Use attacks. These bills were out the end of the same week, or the beginning of the following week. How many of you believe that the legislators sat around on July 18 to write these bills? Or is it more believable that these bills were already written prior to the round-table meeting?

We have been in contact with the Commerce Dept. We will have representatives present during the next discussion. It naturally will be separate from the industry panel (don't wanna kill the golden goose, and don't wanna give the opposition their own sound bites from the same meeting), but it is a step forward. A step that we did not have before we opened our mouths. A step that we would not have if we would have behaved like lambs to the slaughter, as Al3x would have us do. A forum where we will try to correctly define DRM

Should we have spoke out? Or not? You tell me.

But before you do, check out http://www.nyfairuse.org as they have a more complete account of what happened, and that was written a couple of days after the "round-table", not from my memory as I am doing now. Check it out, then tell me: Should we have kept our mouths shut like Al3x wanted? Or did we do something right by taking on Jack Valenti 's poisonous fud and rhetoric?

Did you speak out? Should you have spoken out? Sent an email? Made a phone call? Sent a fax?

I can't answer for you. I can only answer for myself. And I did what I thought was right.

Vincenzo.

I can be reached through the NYFairUse Discuss mailing list

btw, this is just one member's opinion. For official positions by NYLXS or NYFairUse , go to their web sites.

When NYLXS had it's Business Demonstration at the Graduate Center of CUNY in Manhattan, one young man challenged us when he asked if we should be doing more with IBM on the front of Free Software advocacy. We replied to him that IBM can not be trusted to protect the interests of Free Software, and digital property rights, because IBM is mandated by it's charter as a corperation to protect the interests of it's share holders.

So while it is true that businesses need freedom to compete in a fair and open market, businesses can not be depended upon to protect that freedom, nor should we expect them to. This is not their function.

Only through Free Software and political action to protect individual property rights to their computers and media, can we assure a future with Free Digital communications, which will be the foundation of political discourse, education, and social interaction in the future.

We must have a Free Digital infrastructure if our people and government will remain as free. This can not be trusted to IBM, HP or MS, but is in the hands of the people.

Join NY Fair Use to pass the Fair Use bill, and turn the DMCA on it's ears.

I find your comparison to "Greenpeace Nuts" humorous. Contrary to what many on this thread claim I and most of the contigent from nyfairuse.org
were dressed in suits, or at worst sportcoats.
The "type_G_geeks" as you mention were from many places. We are fortunant that many local DC people who care about personal freedom and defending the constitution also turned out. Our group planned this venture, and overcame much to
bring the dangerous secret proceedings out into the open.

When I first arrived at the DOC (parent agency of
my alma mater) at 1130 hours a local DC activist in red tee shirt had just been told that the hearing was now a closed hearing and no public would be admitted. I was able by force of logic and some rhetoric I never new I had in me to convince the powers that were in charge that the public must be admitted to a 'public hearing". We were then told to come back at 1240 and we would be admitted.

When the procedings started and we were asked to take seats I waited patiently until a point came up that I wanted to comment on and could comment on without disrupting the meeting as the speakers were being asked to give reports on what they had done since the last meeting. Mr. Bond called on me and I stated my point, which Mr. Bond tried to interupt. Those that know me know that I have a natural projection that can fill most auditoriums without the aid of amplification. Needless to say I finished my point. The crew from nyfairuse.org only began to shout out rebuttals to the pannel
after Mr. Bond said he would no longer call on me or any other person not on the pre-arranged speakers list. He instead directed all comment to the lame web site with a postage stamp size textbox that almost defies use. Only when it became apparent that the goverment did not care about hearing from the people did our members become publicaly vocal. Our members acted in the greatest traditions of the founders of this country and of those that wish to preserve "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Acta non verba!

Brett Wynkoop
USMMA 1981
co-founder New Yorkers For Fair Use

What we need to do is capitilize on this opportunity and expose the radical enemies of the public for the political radicals that they are. In addition, the MPAA is showing us exactly how to take the steps necessary to defend our fourth amemndment rights under the US Constitution in regard to digital media and privately owned digital devices.

NY Fairuse is willing, with the help of it's sister organization, NYLXS, and with broad co-operation, it begin in Manhattan in May to gather together a broad coalition of IT Industry members, Librarians, Educators, Free Software Advocates, musicians, artisits, actors, and Internet Information Providers the Digital Property Protection Discussion Group.

The purpose of forming this group is to draft and pass legislation which protects individuals 4th amendment rights with regard to their digital devices and media.

The legislation to be drafted will accomplsih the following main stream objectives which all reasonable people can expect:

All copyrights to individual scores, writings, and recordings will be returned to the original artist after a period of 10 years.

No technology can be deployed which spies on, wiretaps or descloses privately owned information which is stored on digital devices by any government agency or private 3rd party without the issuance of a publically pronounced annd disclosed warrant l limited to a specific criminal investigation.

All copyright cases must prove, prior to a judgement of guilt, proof that the actions in question did not infringe on Fair Use, and the individuals rights under the 4th and 1st ammendment of the Bill of rights US Constition.

Ownership of all physical media and devices to read such media, is the sole property of the purchaser of the media, without an expressely negotiated and signed contract between both the copyright holder and the purchaser.

No technological software or hardware method can be deployed in a digital product available for normal retail sale which inhibits in any way the full enjoyment of the property by the purchasers, regardless of any agreement between the designer of the hardware or software products. Such agreements are null, and not contractable.

Copyright is an exception to Fair Use as it limited the ability for individuals to enjoy their private property and express themselves with the use of such copyrighted materials. Fair Use is a doctrin to be based on the 4th and 1st amendments of the Constitutions.

Individuals have the right to express themselves to others about the means, mechanism and workings of all digital devices, including but not limited to discussion on how to make fair use of media, how to improve such devices, or to reverse engineer all such devices and the allgorithims which are used to help them display, copy or run media.

We need to get as many big guns on this as possible and then relentlessly campaign, actively working to elect supporters and unelect opposition. In fact, we should look to defeat, not just the proposed spyware legistlation, but also defeat Senator Hollings

WE CAN force him from office, because he's a radical.

Ruben

Rebuttal of Editorial on www.overclockers.com by New Yorkers for Fair Use:

by Ruben Safir

Founder of NY Fairuse and President of NYLXS

http://www.nyfairuse.org

http://www.nylxs.com

The recent article on Overclockers, also featured on Slashdot, on Saturday April 6th, 2002, is a well thought out representation of the case that copying is not a constitutional right. While the case is presented nicely, and with sound logic, it has a number of fatal flaws within it which causes the author to draw the wrong conclusion. Since this article is gaining decent notoriety, we at New Yorkers Fair Use (http://wwwnyfairuse.org) felt it necessary to fix the mistakes within this article and to present the correct opposing legal and human rights premise for the correct analysis of not only copyright law, but also basic civil rights at this of the dawning digital age.

Recently, the Free Software group, NYLXS (http://www.nylxs.com) and New Yorkers for Fair Use joined together and made a special lobbying trip to Washington DC for the purposes of educating the New York City Congressional delegation, and specifically, Congressman Anthony Weiner, who sits on the Intellectual Property sub-committee in the House Judicial committee, about the increasing dangers to Fair Use and private property being presented by Congress in the interest of the music, publishing and movie industry. The issues outlined in both the Overclockrs article and by Laws like the DMCA, or the proposed SCSS bill coming out of Senator Hollings Chair in the U.S. Senate are the same ones that the NYLXS group tried to present to the Congressman. And these points are remunerated here for the benefit of the wider community so that they are better informed about your individual rights under the Constitution and statutory law with regards to your property and security in your home.

In the article at Overclockers it was stated:

Fair use is never mentioned in the Constitution (not even mentioned in any copyright law until 1976). Rather, it originated in the courts during the nineteenth century as a means by which producers of intellectual property could make limited use of the work of others (and allow somewhat freer use for nonprofit educational purposes).

this is exactly the the function of a Political Action Committee. is there such a thing? i tried to find any, all i got is: New Yorkers for Fair Use

http://www.nyfairuse.org/law_is_copyrighted.xhtml
http://www.thompsonhine.com/news/nl/ebus_march2001 b.asp

You somehow missed quoting my second sentence which seems to me completely consistent with your perspective.

"The gold isn't the issue; it's who cares most and who acts most effectively upon it. "

I'm not disputing the perception of reality you describe in your post. Except to add that we can do something about it, if we care enough. Money is not the bottleneck. Interest is. If the American consumer does nothing, he or she is indicating that giving the record companies more control is acceptable. Most consumers do. It's all fine and good for us to whine about corporate money, influence, politicians, etc, but frankly, the power vaccuum is coming from us. Corporations do not vote these guys in office. We do.

Now every once in a while, ignorance of what to do is the bottleneck. Which is why I recommend people check out the EFF. Or a website like NY Fair Use.

--LP

That said they meet every Monday at 41rst and 5th ave in front of the New York Public Library.

After all ultimatly, if publishers are to get their way, this way, libraries will lose, and we will lose the libraries.

Won't see you there next week but hopefully soon (or never it Dimitri is free and the DMCA thrown out.)

President of LILUG
http://LILUG.ORG

If you create something and then intentionally remove it from the market to bring out something else, which will be forced on users, this is the very definition of Copyright Abuse!! It's immoral, and it's NOT legally defendable.

It's exactly want the Founding Fathers tried to prevent in regards to making sure Copyright was NOT an unlimited property right. And this is the most important point...obtaining a Copyright on a work of art does not create property!! See Fair Use for a further education.

You also bring up a good point. One of the MAJOR troubles of the DMCA is that everyone who was involved in voting for it got a piece of legal code added. There were all kinds of expectations of how it would work, and various Congressional leaders who pushed for the Bill and altered it in the concilation Commitee which dovetailed the Houses version with the Senates version, and the individual comitees in the house and senate, all had different ideas about what certain clauses would do to protect and enhance Copyright and Fair Use.

The DMCA is one of the poorest written peices of legistlation ever to come out of Western Civilization, in addition to it being largely unconstitutional.

It would not have been passed if key members of Congress who voted for it had the ability to see the assualt on Fair Use that it created.

New Yorkers for Fair Use

First, I think that the Constitutional provissions of Freedom of the Press and Freedom of speech can not be superceded by any act of Congress, including the DMCA. This is why I beleive Kaplan is looking at the Freedom of Speech issue and wondering if the Horse is out of the Barn.

If Corly (Pronounced Goldstien :) ) initially was the source of the DeCSS, Kaplan might be inclined to Judge that the Press is not acting like a reporting agency, but simply trafficing in the DeCSS Software. But since it was alreay released...They're just reporting the News.

Ultimately, while the DMCA tries to define Reverse Engineering, and Fair Use, it's not really the last word on these issues since they are Constitutional Doctrin. But even still, the DMCA, which can be seen in it entirety in the link provided, gives us the following contradictory passages!!!

------------------------------
(f ) REVERSE ENGINEERING.-(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained
the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent
a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particu-
lar portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying
and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary
to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer
program with other programs, and that have not previously been

H. R. 2281-8

readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to
the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not
constitute infringement under this title.
``(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and
(b), a person may develop and employ technological means to cir-
cumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection
afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identi-
fication and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of
enabling interoperability of an independently created computer pro-
gram with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve
such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute
infringement under this title.

``(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under
paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may
be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph
(1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means
solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independ-
ently created computer program with other programs, and to the
extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this
title or violate applicable law other than this section.

``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability'
means the ability of computer programs to exchange information,
and of such programs mutually to use the information which has
been exchanged.

_______________________________

Congress added this because it would not withstand a Court Case otherwise. Likely the issue of Fair Use. Without Fair Use provissions, the DMCA would be struck down as Consonstitutional in the Cradle. Part of what these Law Suites are about is the MPAA trying to redefine Fair Use in the eye of the public. Where Fair use was the right to make archival Copies, they are say - no - it isn't.

But the DMCA is clear even in it's text that is can not over rule FAIR USE......

______________________________________________
(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED.-(1) Nothing in this
section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to
copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
______________________________________________

The mechanism of Copyright Office review is some quack idea to try to save this insane act from Court Review death. If the DMCA is an impedence to Fair Use, it should become a dead letter. Therefor the REAL battle is over the definition of Fair Use. That is the issue this case, if decided upon Freedom of Speech/the Press, threatens to circumvent, at least for another day.

In the case against Corey, we have a situation where the prosecution
is saying that Corey is trafficking in an illegal software program
that violates the DMCA. The defense, on the other hand, has been
arguing that Corey is a JOURNALIST!!! and that the links to the
DeCSS program is a protection of the 1st Amendment, protected
Free Speech and an issue of Freedom of the Press.

In this light, actually, the issue of the DMCA is actually a side
show altogether. The real issue is can the court suppress the
Press from reporting the location and contents of DeCSS,
regardless of any violation of the DMCA.

In consideration of THIS question, Kaplan is asking if the Horse is
out of the Barn, Is DeCSS publicly available knowledge which is
newsworthy and therefor afforded protection. This is indeed a
fair point of view in regards to this specific case. Does it
really matter if 2600.com publishes the link, as opposed to
the NY Times?

Probably not.

However, such a ruling does not answer the fundamental question
of the legality of the DMCA or it's use as a legal means to
repress reverse engineering or forms of freedom of speech more
specific the "Fair Use" doctrine.

On the other hand, if Kaplan rules that DeCSS is a form of
speech protected under the 1st amendment, regardless of it
being an instruction kit to descramble the CSS algorthim or
not, then the issue of the Horse being out of the Barn is
irrelevant. Free Speech is assumed to be permitted, horse, barn
or entire farm notwithstanding!

In any event, a ruling in favor of Corey under this logic may not
be what's in the best interest of Free Software, or for that matter,
the public's welfare. Ideally, Kaplan would examine the facts and rule
that the property rights of the writers of the DeCSS permits them to
reverse engineer the CSS encryption scheme, and their rights to
freedom of speech permits them to distribute the code
as they see fit. He would rule this is permissible under the DMCA
and in line with previous Constitutional Ruling of the Supreme Court,
or he would rule that the DMCA is unconstitutional because it's
enforcement would violate the civil rights guaranteed every citizen
to their property and their freedom of speech. Then he would
rule that because the software was legally developed for a legal
purpose, that the MPAA's arguments for a permanent injunction
has no basis in the law, DMCA notwithstanding.

Baring a ruling similar to this, the MPAA might loose this battle, and
not appeal, thereby sidestepping the major issues which argue that the
DMCA is either unenforcible as the MPAA wishes it to be,
or unconstitutional. And in the long run, that would be very bad
for the public and Free Software.

Bet the Farm on it!!

New Yorkers for Fair Use

I'm also tired of Judges who refuse to do their jobs, like Judge Kaplan, and profess to have knowledge that they don't. Kaplan's behavior on the Bench seems to merit his impeachment.

I'm also tired of Judges and Lawyers who can't count past the Number 2 and trolls which represent the MPAA.

---And I am tired of people who are not lawyers not understanding laws, especially one as simple and direct as this one. I've posted this before but obviously it didn't penetrate into some people's skulls so I'll tear it down # by #.--

--- 1) Your first sentence is correct - your second sentence is what YOU think it should be. But it's not and go whine to congress. Currently it's illegal to circumvent CSS no matter what you believe or want to think it should be. DeCSS circumvents CSS - that's exactly what the authors of the program say it does, that's what the defense stipulated to in court that it does, that is what every single expert on the stand has said it does. Please don't continue to pretend to be ignorant to it's true function. --

Actually, nearly every Lawyer I have spoken too disagrees with your assessment.

To quote The Village Voice

"If the judge finds for the plaintiff, and the decision isn't knocked down on appeal," says Yochai Benkler, a professor of information law at New York University, "it will create an environment that's closed like nothing we've ever seen before."

Since I work for NYU, I called Benkler. I asked him about Kaplan's decision that even if the DeCSS was created for reverse engineering purposes, even then the DMCA would not permit the posting of a LINK to the DeCSS code. It seems completely incompatible with the plain meaning of the reverse engineering clause in section 1201 of the DMCA and the Fair Use clause. It is his opinion that Judge Kaplan is making a major stretch in claiming that while the DMCA is so poorly written that it directly stands in conflict of itself, that reverse engineering is OK for an individual user, but that dissemination of the Code would be a violation. It is also his opinion that the DMCA will not stand a review by the Supreme Court if Judge Kaplan's ruling is a correct interpretation of the act.

--- 2) Reverse engineering has some very narrow criteria. And perhaps DeCSS meet these. Do you suggest that every single person using DeCSS uses it for the educational value reverse engineering provides. AND you conveniently forget that even reverse engineering still does not allow you to simple ignore existing copyright protections.---

Reverse engineering has nothing to do with education. Educational copying of copyrighted material is a Fair Use as determined by the Supreme Court and legislated into the copyright code under section 107 of the Copyright Law. Reverse Engineering, by definition, is a protected right which anyone can partake of without permission of the designer of the original device. This is obvious and is considered Prima Faca evidence. Compact did not have IBM's permission to reverse engineer the PC.

--The copyright holder still maintains control over access to his material and no matter HOW you got to the material (unencrypted movie file) the copyright owner STILL owns it and can dictate (like it or not) how and by whom it's accessed. This is not a valid exception and case law supports this. --

Legally speaking - this whole statement is just wrong. First of all, Copyright holders NEVER have the right to maintain control over access to works no matter HOW they distribute the material. The only thing a Copyright holder owns is a license to a limited commercial monopoly of a work. They can not prevent anyone who obtains a copy to limit when they view it, how they view, and with whom they view it with, who they sell their copy to, or how they view it. I think you just made this up.

-- 3) Too bad copying entire movies is not even remotely "fair use" --

Actually - making a copy of a work for personal use, educational purposes, archival purposes, and even to give away for FREE is exactly what Fair Use doctrine is as developed as the Supreme Courts response to abuses of Copyright which inhibited Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights to Property and Freedom of Speech. It was later legislated directly into the Copyright Statute which can be read at New Yorkers for Fair Use.

--too bad that no one is using DeCSS to critique a small sample of a movie. Too bad that there is no need to use DeCSS to perform "fair use" and that it could be performed by other means and so fair use is not an excuse for circumvention. AND, even if fair use was the honest intention - that still does not override the prohibition on circumvention. You must learn how to read law.--

What's too bad is that you fail to understand what your reading in the Law. A purchaser of a Disk does not enter into any contract with the Copyright Owner, or licensing agreement. They can do anything with the disk that is guaranteed under the Constitution as part of their civil rights to ownership of property. This right of property is a guarantee of the Constitution. Copyright does not extinguish an individuals right to his property. He can therefor do what ever he wishes to the disk aside from commercially exploiting it, which is reserved for the Copyright Owner. The Copyright Owner of the material has a limited license from the Government. The Disk owner is the property owner and is not limited by any licenses.

--4) While DeCSS, the source code of that program, is protected as free speech. There is NOTHING in free speech which gives license to violate copyrights.--

This is not the question in front of the court. The question in front of the court is if there is ANYTHING in Copyright which can limit Free Speech. If the Code is Free Speech, it is protected under the Constitution. Copyright can not prevent Free Speech, and that is part of the definition of The Fair Use Doctrine.

-- Again, precidence and the preponderence of case law demonstrates this. Do some research instead of regurgitating EFF BS--

Again - I think you made this up..

--- 5) You sound like an MS hater. This case has nothing to do with antitrust or misuse of copyright and you'll find that neither of those lame defenses was even attempted, even by this lame defense team. ---

Right.... and you are what??? A Troll?

--Copyright owners are free to decide how their IP is distributed and by whom and how it's viewed. Get a grip - stop pulling terms that don't apply outta yer butt! ---

Actually - they are NOT, which is why the DMCA is likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court.