Slashdot Mirror
6th Circuit Court: Code Is Speech
See also the Wired article. And may I just say how delightful it is that the court compared source code to written music -- and to the works of JacksonPollack!
Excerpt from the court opinion:
The issue of whether or not the First Amendment protects encryption source code is a difficult one because source code has both an expressive feature and a functional feature. The United States does not dispute that it is possible to use encryption source code to represent and convey information and ideas about cryptography and that encryption source code can be used by programmers and scholars for such informational purposes. Much like a mathematical or scientific formula, one can describe the function and design of encryption software by a prose explanation; however, for individuals fluent in a computer programming language, source code is the most efficient and precise means by which to communicate ideas about cryptography.
The district court concluded that the functional characteristics of source code overshadow its simultaneously expressive nature. The fact that a medium of expression has a functional capacity should not preclude constitutional protection. Rather, the appropriate consideration of the medium's functional capacity is in the analysis of permitted government regulation.
The Supreme Court has explained that "all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance," including those concerning "the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts" have the full protection of the First Amendment. ... This protection is not reserved for purely expressive communication. The Supreme Court has recognized First Amendment protection for symbolic conduct, such as draft-card burning, that has both functional and expressive features. ...
The Supreme Court has expressed the versatile scope of the First Amendment by labeling as "unquestionably shielded" the artwork of Jackson Pollack, the music of Arnold Schoenberg, or the Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll. ... Though unquestionably expressive, these things identified by the Court are not traditional speech. Particularly, a musical score cannot be read by the majority of the public but can be used as a means of communication among musicians. Likewise, computer source code, though unintelligible to many, is the preferred method of communication among computer programers.
Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment.
There will always be trolls, as long as people keep taking themselves too seriously. Outside of the cold, hard concrete sequential world of C and UNIX type languages and operating systems, there are other kinds of fun to be had, and this is the realm of the troll.
Some see open source as an art form, but trolling is an art of an even higher level. I, for one, find nothing more satisfying than reading a JonKatz tirade, see the pathetic souls show the least bit of interest of said rant, then to browse further down, where "moo fuckaz", "MEEPT", or "first post" lurk. With the exception of the /. poll, the trolls rule the discussion board. Whether OSS truly is an art form/ant farm or not, trolling is. At its lowest levels, it's the agitating comedy of a stand-up hack. At its finest, the masters of Dadaism itself would stand back and admire it.
As trolling day comes to an end in CDT, I hope you have all enjoyed the production, and if not, you're the reason we're here. If you'd like to learn more about the trolls, or perhaps even join, you can visit our private thread. Thank you.
Intelligent and creative thought are valid arguments. They are certainly not relegated to professionals. I, for one, would argue that most groundbreaking thought comes from outside the field, from different disciplines, aka from the so-called "odd man".
As an MD/MPH student, I'm reminded of little DC meeting at GWU regarding TB and HIV. They had a "mix" of individuals there--doctors, lawyers, residents, students. Where did most of the "good ideas" come from? The students.
Degrees mean squat. They're just there for the other idiots that need some documentation that you can do the job.
if (any_more_assholes_post_useless_crap_as_code)
go_fuck_yourself(twofisted);
Does this include grits dumping? What about flame baiting? Trolling? Posts about Emmett's wife, Star? Posts about how boring Timothy is? Any post by ubertroll? A post that asks you to locate and shut your pie hole?
I thought so. Happy Troll day to each and all. Enjoy your freedom of expression.
is run by a bunch of reefer smoking hippies. This ruling is ludicrous. I don't understand how the President can allow this runaway court to get away with their crimes against the US. Clearly, code has to be regulated. If it isn't regulated then all hell will break loose. Please write your congressman/senator to complain.
Ok, it seems that writing and distributing code is legal, as long as you don't run it, right?
/. I feel I must point out a problem: Debugging.
Well, as one of the few programmers that still reads
Every program has bugs when first written. If you release a nearly bug-free source code to a program that can't be run, then prosecution can argue that you debugged it. This involved running it, etc.
This doesn't apply to poetry or music, because playing the music _is_ the form of expression. For source code, writing is the expression. Running is not.
So you have to either release buggy code, or be prepared to show that you debugged it by code reviews alone.
IANAL, but if I were, I'd be suing everybody who gives legal advice without saying IANAL
Actually...
The DMCA is an *american* law. I'm still not clean how a bunch of Norwegians/Canadians can be prosecuted under this particular law.
All in all, I'm very exited about this decision. I feel very vindicated.
As I recall, This is merely upholding a previous ruling that said pretty much the same thing, but the government appealed the case. So does this mean that law schools are actually teaching their students useful information? Too soon to tell.
I would say the reason such opinions are read are because the legal field is, above all, an ongoing conversation among rational people.
Just because one is not a lawyer does not mean one cannot have a rational argument about a legal issue. To assume otherwise is just as preposterous as to assume that only programmers can have an opinion on whether a piece of software is of high quality or not.
The more detailed and low-level the argument, the more professional expertise becomes an issue. Hence "IANAL" becomes a necessary disclaimer.
-Stu
The fact that this is one of the more important legal decisions of the next decade is exactly WHY you should be making jokes about it. Refusing to take the old crap seriously is the first step toward eliminating it.
-Mars
I'd wondered what would happen if a Microsoft were to dispatch an army of lawyers to see if the GPL could be ruled as 'invalid' in a court of law. This latest creates more precedent for treating copyleft as a First Amendment issue, not a property rights/economic issue. From what I've read, even the most conservative Supreme Court judges regard freedom of speech as sacred, when it comes down to "which principle prevails." So, I think we can sleep a little easier at night now.
This is a much stonger case against the DMCA than "Free Use" ever was!
As the Klingons say "This is a Good Day to Die!"
Kapla
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!
AC, you are my AMBASSADOR of Quan!
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
I'm not really worried about degrees, and it's not so much about IANAL or law advice, it's about the clueless speculation. If you're somebody who's honestly interested in law, and has actually studied it, then your opinion isn't clueless.
What I don't like is when I finish reading a post, and think to myself, "He made all that shit up!".
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
"What so fucking cool about not talking about legal matters? You think the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were a breeze, unanimously agreed upon documents? "
Nothing's cool about not talking about legal matters. It's just that IANAL, so I don't try to act like one. And no, I seriously doubt the constitution/Declaration was a breeze, but then again, the people that wrote those knew what they were doing, and weren't just doing what they did to appear knowledgeable.
If you consider the fact that I don't enjoy reading legal "facts" that were obviously made up by the poster "elitism", then call me an elitist.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
"...let's take a look at the trolls. They've given us all kinds of innovations ..." :)
Microsoft is always bragging about *their* innovation, too.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Seeing as how the actual Constitution (the piece of paper under glass somewhere in D.C.) is not your personal property, I don't think anything in it could be used to defend your actions if you actually tried to burn it. If you've got a copy printed on paper that you actually own, then feel free to use it to get those briquettes glowing.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I have an interest in these things.
IMHO, Signal11 comments and his IANAL disclaimer are appropriate in this case; I also thought that his comments were relatively insightful/interesting. However, your points are very, very good. We the denizens of /. talk about legal issues while we are usually not trained or really proficient in the legal aspects of what we talk about.
However, why is this a one way street? I don't see the lawyers and judges that have oversight capabilities over technology issues saying, IANAG or IANAN. Guess what G or N stand for. I have talked to my friends about some the technology issues and their general response is that they don't matter at this time. At first I was somewhat PO until they explained that much of law is based on legal precedent.
IMHO and IANAL, in high tech, there has not been enough pertinent cases to establish the rule of law. Furthermore, there has not been enough earlier landmark cases that can then be taught to young law students.
The only difference between The Anarchist's Cookbook and a virus, or between any book and any program, is that a book is software that runs in a brain and a program is software that runs in a CPU. It is not what ideas (or software) you have that matters, it is what you do with them.
The difference between detonating a nuclear weapon and running a virus is this: you cannot safely detonate a nuclear weapon, but a virus can be executed and studied under controlled conditions.
This plays into the patent issue, too. Software is not a machine, it is the idea of a machine. It just happens that thanks to computers, the idea becomes as good as a real machine. But that no more makes it a machine than a vivid masturbatory fantasy is sex with Laetitia Casta, no matter how many might wish it were otherwise.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
"Secondly, there is the little matter of... da-dum... DMCA."
Very true. The more I think of it, though, the more ammunition this seems to give to the anti-DMCA movement.
The DMCA does not prohibit "anti-piracy" tools in order to prevent obscenity or breaches of national security -- it just prevents the circumvention of schemes used to protect media from being copied. (Or, apparently, viewed, if the scheme used to view might be used to copy, however small that possibility may be.)
However, the publishers of programs that demonstrate how to circumvent copy protection are not, themselves, circumventing it. They are merely informing others of how the protection can be circumvented. As has been proven repeatedly, this is not even particularly biased speech -- it helps the securer to know how their mechanisms are being circumvented, just as it helps people circumvent them. Not much different from someone pointing out a big hole in a prison wall, IMO, or how a home security system might not be all that secure.
(The DMCA would would still seem capable of preventing people from actually using this technology to circumvent protection, and since this still curtails a lot of fair use, the fundamental flaw is still there. Seems to pull a lot of teeth out of it, though.)
Far more interesting, IMO, is its applications in cases like cphack, where the information revealed isn't even particularly useful to ostensible opponents of the technology -- that is, seeing an unencrypted site list from Cyber Patrol doesn't tell me how to get around Cyber Patrol's blocks if I'm running a blocked site. That would be like needing to encrypt my credit report because I might be able to change it -- I can't, and I am, in fact, given the explicit legal right to see it for purposes of oversight.
(It does show consumers how little bearing Mattel's claims to them have on reality, and might make them opponents of Mattel's efforts to keep their site list secret, but that's another story. And it does let kids see the URL's of the sites they can't see -- OTOH, how, exactly, do you teach your child which words not to say in public?)
phil
P.S. -- The law of averages should make it clear that, on a site that only attracts a minority of lawyers as its audience, I am probably not a lawyer if I don't explicitly point it out. So I won't point it out, and anyone who thinks I am a lawyer is making an unreasonable assumption. :)
"INTERCAL... Expressions that look like line
noise. Control constracts that will make you gasp, make you laugh, and possibly make you hurl."
Hummm.... Sounds like perl...
*ducks*
--
If you want to slate the man off then have the balls to say who you are.
You can only speak for yourself in this, if anyone has a problem with this guy posting then they can say so themselves.
For all I know you are posting this as an effort to direct bad PR from Mattel because you are in thier employ.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
Actually, now that I work for an e-commerce company, I would like to be able to tell any customers that question our site's security that the encryption used to communicate between them and us has so far proven unbreakable.
It's not so different than stress testing a program. You try out every little thing you possibly can to see if it will break. You have many people do this since thought processes differ as does experience.
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
i actually kind of find it funny the way everyone's spazzing about that line..
seeing as the line wasn't actually serious to begin with.. -_-
-mcc-baka
http://drowned.cx/decss/
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Why can't a machine be a particular expression?
I think EFF's DES cracker machine is an example of one.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
And caring about stuff is bad, right?
You suck. That's probably why you call sorehands a cocksucker. You're a latent and can't get the subject off your mind.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I hope you don't make me do it again. It fills me with pity to see you suffer so.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The only person considered competent to decide infringement is an IP lawyer.
I think the judges generally make this call.
What would happen is your guys would go to court and explain to the judge why what you're doing is different, and their guys would explain why it's too similar. The judge presumably pays attention to this and at the end decides who is correct.
I fail to see how this process could be made any more effective (short of your seeming suggestion that it just be up to the second party to decide whether or not they're infringing)...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
This is a major landmark decision. Not only for DeCSS, but for other recent cases too. I'm wondering how if anyone is going to bring this up in relation to the DeCSS hearing, and if the MPAA will still persist (though we all know the answer to that).
[]$ gcc dork.c dork.c:1: `#include' expects "FILENAME" or
dork.c:10: warning: return-type defaults to `int' dork.c: In function `main': dork.c:12: `return0' undeclared (first use in this function) dork.c:12: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once dork.c:12: for each function it appears in.) dork.c:13: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
etc....
Careful there, norculf - the ruling applied to code, not to comments!
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
IIRC, the authors of the first report on the Algol
language explitly said is was for communicating Alorithms. People to machines *or* people to people.
Wasn't the general idea behind law and governement "By the people, for the people"? If we're not talking about laws, who will be? Correct, lawyers and politicians. Now what do we get, laws designed by lawyers, for lawyers.
The IANAL thingy is just to alert people not to use anything from the article without checking it with a lawyer.
btw. IANALT
this ruling applies only to the 6th District
well...True, it's an absolute ONLY inside the 6th district, but most other courts will take it as precedient, because that's part of the foundation of our judicial system. While another judge can say "That judge was an idiot" and make a contradictory ruling, the defendant in such a case could then appeal higher with significant legal backing.
~Donald / Just RTFM
If you're going to go to the trouble of compiling the code, what next? Does that *automatically* mean that you are going to use it for 'underhanded' purposes? Controversial as it may be, and as broken as the logic may be, this is the argument that the MPAA/legal system is likely to use in order to bypass the 6th Circuit Court's ruling.
No..that doesn't fly. I can copy my father's LP's onto tapes. The music as sound is copyrighted, thus I cannot redistribute it. Also, I cannot say, copy it by ear onto staff paper and distribute that. BUT, If I'm copying it for MY use AT MY HOME, I can use it. I have further rights if it's being used educationally.
THUS: I can obtain the CODE (protected via Amendment 1) and I can study that code, and I can COMPILE the code as part of that study. If we ignore DMCA, I can even USE the compiled programme to copy a DVD for my personal use. But again, I cannot redistribute.
~Donald / Just RTFM
Secondly, there is the little matter of... da-dum... DMCA. I'm pretty sure it makes DeCSS illegal, and unless/until it is shown to be unconstitutional and thrown out,
But doesn't this now cause a conflict between DMCA (or certain applications thereof) and the first amendment? Even if DMCA is not directly challenged on these grounds, AFAIK in most situations where a case involves a conflict between the FA and another law (especially a very young one), judges defer to the FA.
Now, if they find speech/expression to be _directly_ harmful, such as hate speech, or child porn, or incitement to riot, it usually loses its FA protection. But this isn't the same thing as potential harm, which is what you have with a piece of code that _might_ be harmful (and not physically or mentally), IF compiled, and even then only IF used in such a way, ec'cetry ec'cetry.
IAN blah blah, but you knew that.
IANAL and any corrections/clarifications would be appreciated.
YM "first", "amendment". HTH.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
but compiling it and using it is NOT.
Actually, using it should be legal as long as you only use it on movies you own and provided that what you use the decrypted video files for is covered by "fair use".
Owning a lockpick is legal. Picking your own door is legal. Picking someone elses is not, unless you have acquired permission from the owner.
The judge deemed DeCSS illegal because he believes that its _primary use_ is for pirating movies.
Never mind that pirating 4-8GB of data is impractical and expensive today, that the DeCSS algorithm is necessary to write a DVD player that is not hampered with DVDCCA's licensing terms, and that reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability is legal in most countries out there, but I digress.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Welcome to BenchDot:
News for Lawyers, Stuff that Sues
Ask Benchdot: Pro bono, pros and cons?
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Although it falls under 'fair use' for you to copy your DVD, copying that DVD (which you are allowed) requires you to circumvent a copy control mechanism, which requires the useof an ILLEGAL tool, and is an ILLEGAL act. So although having the copy is legal, the act of circumventing the copy protection to make that copy is illegal. That's messed up.
Or said in the words of a person that IAPOL:
"Code that cracks a protection device is criminal under the DMCA even if the use of the copyrighted material that the code enables would be fair use."
- Lawrence Lessig, Berkman Professor of Law, Harward Law School.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Just write it in perl
Would you call Perl expressive?! *duck*
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
So we get a situation where the reader has been fully warned that the post may be full of crap, yet still we read it? And the output of unsolicited legal advice on slashdot is not only used and condoned, but promoted through moderation?
Because this is a discussion forum. People discuss ideas, debate them, rant about them, and moderate them according to how they see fit. Just because someone has passed a bar exam does not make their opinions more holy. It only means they can charge for legal advice. But being educated citizens, I firmly believe it is our civic duty to dicuss ideas such as these until we are blue in the face. We are educating ourselves as participants in a democracy.
Further, law is frequently interpretative. If a lawyer says one thing, and your random IANALer says something different, the IANALer can still be correct. Case in point: the DMCA. IANAL, but in my opinion this act is a piece of shit. Am I wrong because I do not have a law degree? Absolutely not.
In short, if you believe that political matters should be debated only by "experts", you are sadly, sadly misinformed. Political and legal matters frequently overlap, and everyone should get their feet wet in this arena.
- Rev.
If source code is speech and noone has a copyright on it and it will not cause immediate irreperable harm, it cannot legally be suppressed. The DeCSS Judge said source code wasn't speech, but now there is a precedent that contradicts him.
Actually the freedom of speach applies regardless of one being a US citizen or not. Just as freedom of thought and religion. Some things such as the right to vote only apply to citizens, but speach applies to everyone that is 'speaking' within the US.
Also, the original creators are not the ones being sued in the US it is organizations and/or individuals that posted DeCSS on their web sites in this country.
RSA is itself an algorithm yes. In order to implement that algorithm on a computer, you need to express it as source code.
RSA is not just code, it is both an algorithm and an expression of that algorithm (or multiple expressions.) In much the same way as my textbook has an expression of quite a few (patented even) text-searching algorithms.
Text is free speech, source code is text. Why was this even brought to court?
-Dan
*sigh*
you say that DeCSS is legal? well the code is legal, protected and all that junk, yet the using of the code? i don't think so. using the code still violates all those nifty copyright laws and the such. so saying that it is legal is true, yet false at the same time. so don't get too excited...
Of course, we'll see how the other circuits treat this ruling.
The new crypto regulations had to happen first, you'll notice ...
IANAL seems more to me a way of saying this is my opinion, not the result of legal research. I'd expect a lawyer to use a disclaimer for the same thing.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
postmoderncore - art and creation are a higher purpose
I've been waiting to see if the US courts would ever clue onto this. It's a very important idea that code is communication as much as instruction, and almost all computer code is intended for people to read (even if the same programmer six months later).
The courts have now tacitly acknowledged that rather than restricting technology, crypto source export laws were restricting discussion of crypto. This seems obvious looking at the title of the book this case is about - "Computers and the Law". I'm kind of disappointed that the academic community didn't kick up a stink, because Junger was an academic. But in the end the whole exercise seemed like trying to restrict nuke proliferation by banning any discussion involving nuclear physics equations.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
postmoderncore - art and creation are a higher purpose
Oops...
class SoapBox
{
private:
std::vector<std::string> m_Enemies;
public:
SoapBox()
{
m_Enemies.push_back("MPAA");
m_Enemies.push_back("RIAA");
m_Enemies.push_back("MSFT");
m_Enemies.push_back("NSA");
for(std::vector<std::string>::iterator i =
m_Enemies.begin(); i != m_Enemies.end(); ++i)
{
std::cout << "Fuck the evil " << *i << "!" << std::endl;
}
} SoapBox_Inst;
int main(int, char**){}
class SoapBox
{
private:
std::vector<std::string> m_Enemies;
public:
SoapBox()
{
for(std::vector<std::string>::iterator i =
m_Enemies.begin(); i != m_Enemies.end(); ++i)
{
std::cout << "Fuck the evil " << *i << "!" << std::endl;
}
} SoapBox_Inst;
int main(int, char**){}
It looks like people in the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee can now export PGP freely, as the source code in electronic form was outlawed for distribution internationally; However despite the ban on electronic media, in paper form it could be distributed overseas, except for places such as North Korea, and to other nations we are officially at "war" with - if you sent it to the Reds you could still be charged with the one crime named in the US Constitution, treason. Now that source code has the same protections, at least in the 6th circuit, as printed works, send away!
Although one thing I don't think you still can't do, distribute binary files... Oh well, I'm glad I'm not held back by using that OS written by criminals.
Have you patented your Hot Grits today?
The programmers, don't forget, are in Sweden!
Our constitution, and whatnot don't apply to them!!!
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to rehear the Bernstein case, en banc (i.e. before the entire court rather than just the usual three judge panel). The most recent ruling was in DJB's favor, so if the appeals process lost its momentum, DJB wins. The case isn't "pending" because of DJB's concerns; He won the last round. The case is pending because the Government knows they are wrong, they don't have the imagination to do more than stomp their feet and say "please, please, please, hear us again", and they don't have the courage to admit that they are wrong. The feds are stalling, plain and simple.
Adrian
PS: IANAL
As to why we all insist on discussing law, well, we may be geeks, but that doesn't mean we're monomaniacs. Many of us just like figuring out complicated things, and the law is, more or less, just an incredibly complex instruction set used for delimiting appropriate behaviors. There are also laws about laws, providing us with cascading metalevels, overriding principles, and precedence issues.
Hacking law can be fun. Writing IANAL is not just a disclaimer; it is an admission that one is dabbling with legal theories.
--
This is not my sandwich.
Secondly, there is the little matter of...da-dum... DMCA. I'm pretty sure it makes DeCSS illegal
Yes but as I'm sure you're aware, the constitution hasq a precedence over any laws passed, including the DMCA. I'm sure you remember the Communications Decency Act or whatever it was called. It was a big deal when it was passed, but slowly the courts cought up with it and eventually the Supreme Court struck it down. I believe the same thing will happen here, we just haven't had the cases yet.
Link to CDA Info
> Since the compiled product is a TOOL and not a vehicle for free speech, the judge can still keep DeCSS illegal.
I don't buy that on the grounds that there are LOTS of TOOLS that _COULD_ be used for malicious purposes. Doesn't mean its right to make them illegal.
> I'd like to remind you the judge considered DeCSS a mechanism for piracy.. not a tool to promote interoperability.
So basically we trample over the right(s) of the authors (free speech) in the name of security.
"Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither" seems to come to mind.
> HOWEVER, I'd be willing to bet that distribution of the SOURCE is now legal.. but compiling it and using it is NOT.
That makes sense _IF_ we look at it in the light any other [dangerous] tool, such as explosives. Having information how to make a bomb is not a crime. _Owning_ the parts of a bomb is.
Is DeCSS _ONLY_ designed to promote piracy ?
I don't think it is, and on that basis, it should not be illegal.
express ourselves in 'source' more often....you know sometimes you just wanna burst out "PIPE GREP MORE!!" :)
--
Homer: "No beer, No TV make Homer something something";
Marge: "Go crazy?";
Homer: "Don't mind if I do!"
arcane for life
Perhaps it's just a frustrated outlashing that lawyers who rule on programming don't say "IANAP" at the end of their findings.
Which is worse--us or them?
One might as well question why people say, "with all due respect" just before saying words that are not the least bit respectful ;)
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
yeah that would be true if they DeCSS guys were american citizens... damn DMCA megacorp bigger than governments.
If its stupid but it works, its not stupid.
Likewise, you can send all your friends the source code for your latest Internet worm, but if they compile and run it, they've crossed the line between communicating an idea and actually carrying it out.
Reading the book (compiling source code) and building the bomb (runing the program) Detonating it (using it to crack the DVD encryption)
Sounds like pretty much the same thing to me.
If its stupid but it works, its not stupid.
while(1){
printf("This is a very Good Thing");
printf("However, we cannot stop fighting now.");
printf("There is much yet to do. This is merely another weapon in our arsenal");
if (Programmers.areNotBeingPersecuted){
break;
}else{
continue;
}
}
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
Dude, you're missing the point.
IANAL is a disclaimer. Do you think a real lawyer would get respect in this forum?
Nay, I think it's a cloak -- if you actually know your legal kung fu you have to preface with IANAL in order to get the hacker to swallow the pill.
Sheesh!
Mojotoad
To me, this sounds like it would definitely throw a wrench into the machine of the corporations suing everyone over DeCSS and other things (CPHack even). Is there anyone with any knowledge of the law able to give us an idea of what, if anything, this actually means to current and future cases of this variety?
I think the judges generally make this call.
While I believe this is true, it is my understanding (and you can see the subject line about my understanding) that current precedent declares laymen not competent for the purpose because they do not understand prior court decisions or the finer points of IP law. As we've seen, in such cases it is far more important to be legally correct than technologically/ethically correct.
And remember that we are all the source of the law's power. If a lawyer or judge ever talks down to me on the topic of law, I will consider that to be arrogant. It's arrogant, because it assumes that law is a black art and the knowledge is limited to the elite.
In the USA (which I believe you are in from the tone of your post), this is in fact the situation. Legally speaking, the common man is not considered to be capable of interpreting the law.
Let me give you an example: patents and the infringement thereof. You might think that if you want to avoid stepping on somebody's toes, the best thing to do would be to gather a big heap of patents, give them to your chief science dudes, and let them work out how close they are to infringing. After all, they understand the subject better than lawyers, so they can figure out what's similar and different and obvious and fair, right?
Wrong. Even if your guys look at a patent and conclude that you're not infringing, you can be sued for knowingly infringing on that patent. The only person considered competent to decide infringement is an IP lawyer. Thus, you order your scientists to avoid even glancing in the general direction of other patents in the field and leave it all to the legal department.
Is this fair? Hell no. I would certainly trust a lawyer's legal opinion over my own in most cases, but I don't think that means I'm unable to understand the law if pointed to the correct sections. However, the law is not always concerned with fairness.
Alik
Elitist fucking "the A group should do A and the B group should do B" moron.
What so fucking cool about not talking about legal matters? You think the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were a breeze, unanimously agreed upon documents?
If anything the American revolution was as much a civil war among the colonists as a revolution.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
But really, somehow I think there are strong interests with deep pockets that think the DCMA takes priority over that silly Bill of Rights.
Remember that the DMCA is a US law, which contrary to popular belief within the US, doesn't apply anywhere else. The DeCSS code was written in Norway, so how can a US law be used against it?
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Remember that the DMCA is a US law, which contrary to popular belief within the US, doesn't apply anywhere else. The DeCSS code was written in Norway, so how can a US law be used against it?
Well, if you're in the US, the answer is obvious. And remember that thing with Mattel? Suing people in Canada in an American court for violating US laws.
There's a difference between debating a topic or document and giving legal advice.
For example if personA asks "Is such and such legal?" and personB says "Yes." Then personB has just claimed that [s]he knows the specifics of all laws, National,state,local or otherwise regarding to "such and such". If this happens on Slashdot personB is almost certainly a programmer or programer-wannabe who doesn't have the knowledge he claimed he had back when I began this paragraph.
Imagine if they were talking about something technical instead of legal.
PersonA:"Can I run My DOS program on my iMAC?"
PersonB:"Of course, current MacOS has the ability to read data off of PC disks and DOS runs on a PC so you should be fine. But IANAProgrammer"
#include what? Looks like your didn't work! :)
although funny, you better not have any death threats to the president though, you can still be found liable for whatever you have in your code.
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
Now imagine that Signal11 writes an add-on mod and level that takes on the white house, and is a well-diagramed display, and one of the enemies you must kill is the President. This is an expression that is a threat to national security, and Signal11 could get in a LOT of trouble. There are things where this could be a bigtime limit of freedom as well, because freedom of speech/expression only goes so far.......
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
What's odd is that if you format that is in plain text, the greater-than and less-than signs still don't come out... what's up slashdot?
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
HMmm, that makes me curious: Is it unconstitutional to burn the constitution? After all... it's an expression! Like burning the flag. Makes me wonder though, kinda throws me into an infinite loop thinking about it.
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
Yikes! A cluster of judges?!
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
Hey man, you just sent yourself into an infinite loop for a while... at least until the next stupid court decision comes out and we don't see one that makes sense.
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
Although there are still a few more proceedings to go through, this is good.
First off, its a step in the right direction. Open source wins once again.
Second off, although the court hearing was done within the barriers of the constitution, the opposing sides of case have been known to dissent in as well.
Third and firstmost, you are correct about the TOOL part, yet incorrect about compiling and using.
Fourth and thirdmost, the reason that you're incorrect about the compilation and using is because it will be legal to execute the written code if it is a legal amount of code in the firstplace, meaning that it does not make its writer liable for anything, or cause a national security, or harm anyone in a significant/reasonable way.
Fifth, this goes along well with the possibility of having Microsoft having to release some of its source code. Now the courts can have a writ of mandamis that it be handed over now that the actuall open source IS legal. Before this, all of that banter would have been ILLEGAL!
Sixth, my fifth reason leads me into my next part: Open source dominates because there is nothing more to hand over. DRI may be a problem, however.
Seventh, you can't triple stamp a double stamp, like in "Dumb and Dumber"
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
print "HAHAHA, now I can write programs that spit out evil and malicious words and its merely an expression!\n";
Then again, that wasn't illegal before, was it?
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
Interesting argument, however patents on code are never written as code. They are not allowed to be, if someone has a 'software patent' they are obligated to write them in 'means+function' language.
Essentially what this means is you can patent the algorithm, but you can't patent the code itself. This is the realm of copyright(in my opinion the first recognition by the state that code is and always has been speech).
For example
Everyone's favorite patent. And as you can see from the front page, the first figure is described by a flow chart demonstrating the alogorithm of the patent.
Although I am against any and all patents, I wonder, can one patent/copywrite the "functional" part while still having the "expressive" part be free speech?
The prosecution in the US is going after web sites that link/host the decss code.
The investigation in Norway is proceeding under their IP laws.
<extreme_example_for_shock_value>
Not that I agree with the DMCA, but the argument you're putting forth is the legal equivalent of, "I manufactured the Nuclear Bomb in [insert small 3rd world country], why isn't it legal in the US?"
</extreme_example_for_shock_value>
"Since when is RSA nothing but code? RSA is an encryption algorithm. The source code is an implementation of that algorithm (a.k.a. process). RSA can be described without a scrap of source code. It is a mathematical algorithm."
True. RSA, Wavelets, fractal compression, gif - they are all mathematical algorithms. Mathmatical expressions. Speech just like art, writing, source code, recipies in a cookbook, or the latest Niven book.
Copyright covers speech, not patents. Patents don't apply to RSA, or any other mathematical algorithm.
Note: I am aware that I'm not talking about the opinion of the USPTO, or anyone else - I'm talking about the nature of speech.
Yes, but under the DMCA, computers are also illegal. Or, at the very least, any program that can be used to copy data. There's a clause I seem to remember that makes any technology or part used in that technology illegal if it could be used to copy a copy-protected work.
Also, it offers new power to companies like Microsoft. All they have to do is apply 1-bit encryption to all Word Documents created by Word 3000, (possibly might have to copyright the file format too...) and suddenly, programs compatible with Word 3000 are illegal. They're tools that circumvent a protection measure of a copywritten work
Note that I'm writing this in a hurry, from memory, without previewing, so feel free to correct me.
-RickHunter
The only instance that can give you the right answer is always the last court of appeal. Everything a mere laywer says is only an opinion that has to be tested in court. Even if it is a more knowing and professional opinion than that of the others
thomas
How come /. removes all white space from posters ? /. look pretty ugly. My attempts to "pretty print" mathematical formulas in ascci has also suffered a cruel destiny due to the removal of white space. Example:
:-(
All source code on
x squared
2
x
The 2 ought to be at the proper place
-- A Mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems. - Paul Erdös
Hmph - wouldn't want to see any 'Seasoned professionals' defining their own string class in C++ these days.
;) first enter the draft standard?
When did std::string (or even std::basic_string<char> if you want to confuse the newbies
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
What happens with the Daniel J. Bernstein (djb of qmail, tcp syncookies, etc. fame) case? The last I heard, the case was in dubious standing as a result of the recent changes in cryptography regulations (in fact, the way I recall it, the case was pending only because djb was concerned about the speech issues rather than the export issues since you still have to apply for an export permit.
This ruling will certainly get challenged and possibly overruled on appeal anyway... (cynically speaking).
Since the final word now is that source code is a constitutionally protected form of expression...
Is the Federal 6th Circuit Appeals Court indeed the final word?
Yes, but with karma points you get an extra 25% off!
I think those who post about what the law (statue or case law) is, as distinct from what a just law should be, should be able to provide a citation. www.law.cornell.edu is your friend.
That goes for lawyers as well as IANALers. Indeed it goes double for lawyers, who have no excuse for not backing up their assertions.
Finally, anyone who takes any Slashdot posting as professional advice, even if the poster is a lawyer, needs to see a shrink as well as a lawyer.
--
So many "First Post" idiots....so few moderator points....
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
In actuality, we are never informed that we require a professional lawyer. The court can't force us to get professional legal help, and so they do not "admit" that we cannot know the law.
While I agree that U.S. law is far too complicated for any one person to understand, one can easily function in society with only one's common sense to judge what (probably) is legal and illegal.
A lawyer's job, therefore, is to use his or her knowledge of the law (which, as a professional, is no doubt more extensive than his or her client's), and protect his or her client against the opposing party's lawyers or the prosecuting attorneys. That way, the matchup in court is more fair.
Thus, while the court does not require one to have an attorney, they do recommend it, for good reason.
Pierce Hanley
pierce@vt.edu
Say, for a moment, that the ruling went the other way...
What category would perl poetry fall under... it's poetry, so that's expression... yet it's source code, so it's not...
Okay, maybe it's just late and I'm going nuts. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
Everyone who posts legal discussion should put on IANAL (unless they are lawyers, in which case another disclamer would be more appropriate). The reason is that it is illegal to give legal advice without a valid license. That is just the nature of our legal system, not any presumption by the people posting.
I guess the reason for that kind of law it is that if you were a lawer and sombody took a statement you make (ie "DeCSS is legal to distribute any way you want") and acted on it, you might be liable for any legal trouble they get in. It's unlikely that a judge would convict anyone for posting on slashdot, but being supoenaed to appear in court somwhere far away, just because another slashdot reader acted stupid on your advice would not fun.
I am definately not a lawyer, but I try to understand the law when it applies to me, and I like to be able to discuss it with other people when it applies to them too. But so that nobody misunderstands my comments as legal advice, I put IANAL in my message so they know that they should consult a real lawyer licensed in their state before they do anything that might be illegal.
Of course, IANAL so this post should not be considered legal advice either....
Steve
I think a better analogy to use would be that DeCSS is like lockpicks. Lockpicks have both legal and illegal uses, but all of them involve breaking into things. The same can be said for DeCSS. The DMCA may ban DeCSS, just as lockpicks are often lot legal to own unless you are a locksmith.
There are only the broad issues of course. Much of the defence in the DeCSS cases is likely to revolve around the wording of 17 USC 1201 (aka the DMCA) because it is not clear in the wording how it might apply to DeCSS and the whole CSS access control scheme in general.
I hope the judge will side with the defense and say that the valid uses of DeCSS ought weigh any possible uses that violate the rights of the copyright holder. We will have to see how it goes.
Steve
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
I think that saying 'IANAL' is kind of pointless. Let's say someone says that they really are a lawyer. Are you going to use their comments as real legal advice? No, if you need to you'll get your own lawyer and listen to their advice and their advice only. This is why you pay them.
On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with talking about legal matters outside of that kind of client relationship, so long as you don't say anything that isn't true, and qualify your opinions as opinions. Whether or not they are a lawyer's opinions shouldn't matter except so much as they may present a more detailed argument.
Having everyone else go out of their way to say that they don't happen to be a lawyer is kind of annoying, especially if you happen to be tired of acronyms. Especially if you've engaged in multi-disciple study before and been forced to memorize several different meanings for the same damn acronym. Anyway...
But that's not all. If I find out some trade secrets and post them online, then I can get sued by the owners of the information.
IANAL, but from what I've heard here and elsewhere this is not the case if you simply "find out" the trade secret rather than "misappropriating" it, say by signing an NDA before being allowed to see it.
--
--
Things are only impossible until they are not.
/* If I see one more comment posted in
...then I'll throw up
;)
* witty yet obnoxiously cute source code...
*/
if (I.see("Comment written in witty yet obnoxiously cute source code") && obnoxious_source_code_posts_seen(I) > last_obnoxious_source_code_posts_seen(I)) {
//
I.enqueue_action(BARF);
}
God->bless(America);
/*
* Heh heh heh...
* Actually, I think those posts are kinda funny
* God->bless(Slashdot);
*/
--
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
Slashdot strips tags, and <headers> look like tags, don't they?
Will I retire or break 10K?
As far as I can see, the only current distinction is that source code isn't implementation, but the compiled code is. What's magical about a compiler?
And then there are systems that can take source code and execute it more-or-less directly. These systems are called "interpreters." For example, Micro$oft released a lot of interpreters for the Basic language (though QBasic was its last decent Basic product; the rest are just virus programming languages :-). Even the veritable GNU Emacs contains an interpreter for Elisp.
Other messages in this discussion seem to imply that executable code is not speech. Does this mean I should go back to DOS Edit.com for coding?
Will I retire or break 10K?
During the DeCSS proceedings, when ultimately the distribution of DeCSS was ruled to be illegal, I was very afraid that we were a only few steps from Orwell's "thought crime."
It works like this: first, you can't distribute source code (read: idea, meme, expression, etc). Then, you can't link to those who distribute it. Then you can't possess it. Then you can't talk about. Or think about it. Ulitmately, a sequence of characters, a form of expression is outlawed. It seemed outrageous to me that I according to a judge, I couldn't wear a shirt that had the code on it. When people saw my shirt, I became a criminal for propogating illegal ideas.
As soon as someone (the judge) realized that code is just another form of language, and that in affect outlawing code is like banning offensive literature, our good old American nature kicked back in. Imagine if someone had, instead of posting code to reveal of list of blocked sites in CyberPatrol, had written a song including there feelings about the software and how it might be circumvented. No judge would have granted an injunction against this song. The song is only an expression; likewise the code.
Maybe we should create a message board for communication between programmers that is composed only of code. This code could include the CPHack code, DeCSS, and anything else we like. Compile it, and thats another story. But at least now we have a precedent.
Bryan Klingner, MCSE, MCP+I
Evolution of a programmer > High School/Jr.High > ================== > 10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD" > 20 END > > > First year University > ==================== > program Hello(input, output) > begin > writeln(Hello World) > end. > > > Senior year University > ===================== > (defun hello > (print > (cons Hello (list World)))) > > > New professional > =============== > #include > void main(void) > { > char *message[] = {"Hello ", "World"}; > int i; > > for(i = 0; i printf("%s", message[i]); > printf("\n"); > } > > > Seasoned professional > ==================== > #include > #include > > class string > { > private: > int size; > char *ptr; > > public: > string() : size(0), ptr(new char(\0)) {} > > string(const string &s) : size(s.size) > { > ptr = new char[size + 1]; > strcpy(ptr, s.ptr); > } > > ~string() > { > delete [] ptr; > } > > friend ostream &operator string &operator=(const char *); > }; > > ostream &operator { > return(stream } > > string &string::operator=(const char *chrs) > { > if (this != &chrs) > { > delete [] ptr; > size = strlen(chrs); > ptr = new char[size + 1]; > strcpy(ptr, chrs); > } > return(*this); > } > > int main() > { > string str; > > str = "Hello World"; > cout > return(0); > } > > > Master Programmer > ================ > [ > uuid(2573F8F4-CFEE-101A-9A9F-00AA00342820) > ] > library LHello > { > // bring in the master library > importlib("actimp.tlb"); > importlib("actexp.tlb"); > > // bring in my interfaces > #include "pshlo.idl" > > [ > uuid(2573F8F5-CFEE-101A-9A9F-00AA00342820) > ] > cotype THello > { > interface IHello; > interface IPersistFile; > }; > }; > > [ > exe, > uuid(2573F890-CFEE-101A-9A9F-00AA00342820) > ] > module CHelloLib > { > // some code related header files > importheader(); > importheader(); > importheader(); > importheader("pshlo.h"); > importheader("shlo.hxx"); > importheader("mycls.hxx"); > > // needed typelibs > importlib("actimp.tlb"); > importlib("actexp.tlb"); > importlib("thlo.tlb"); > > [ > uuid(2573F891-CFEE-101A-9A9F-00AA00342820), > aggregatable > ] > coclass CHello > { > cotype THello; > }; > }; > > #include "ipfix.hxx" > > extern HANDLE hEvent; > > class CHello : public CHelloBase > { > public: > IPFIX(CLSID_CHello); > > CHello(IUnknown *pUnk); > ~CHello(); > > HRESULT __stdcall PrintSz(LPWSTR pwszString); > > private: > static int cObjRef; > }; > > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include "thlo.h" > #include "pshlo.h" > #include "shlo.hxx" > #include "mycls.hxx" > > int CHello::cObjRef = 0; > > CHello::CHello(IUnknown *pUnk) : CHelloBase(pUnk) > { > cObjRef++; > return; > } > > HRESULT __stdcall CHello::PrintSz(LPWSTR pwszString) > { > printf("%ws\n", pwszString); > return(ResultFromScode(S_OK)); > } > > CHello::~CHello(void) > { > // when the object count goes to zero, stop the server > cObjRef--; > if( cObjRef == 0 ) > PulseEvent(hEvent); > > return; > } > > #include > #include > #include "pshlo.h" > #include "shlo.hxx" > #include "mycls.hxx" > > HANDLE hEvent; > > int _cdecl main(int argc, char * argv[]) > { > ULONG ulRef; > DWORD dwRegistration; > CHelloCF *pCF = new CHelloCF(); > > hEvent = CreateEvent(NULL, FALSE, FALSE, NULL); > > // Initialize the OLE libraries > CoInitializeEx(NULL, COINIT_MULTITHREADED); > > CoRegisterClassObject(CLSID_CHello, pCF, CLSCTX_LOCAL_SERVER, > REGCLS_MULTIPLEUSE, &dwRegistration); > > // wait on an event to stop > WaitForSingleObject(hEvent, INFINITE); > > // revoke and release the class object > CoRevokeClassObject(dwRegistration); > ulRef = pCF->Release(); > > // Tell OLE we are going away. > CoUninitialize(); > > return(0); } > > extern CLSID CLSID_CHello; > extern UUID LIBID_CHelloLib; > > CLSID CLSID_CHello = { /* 2573F891-CFEE-101A-9A9F-00AA00342820 */ > 0x2573F891, > 0xCFEE, > 0x101A, > { 0x9A, 0x9F, 0x00, 0xAA, 0x00, 0x34, 0x28, 0x20 } > }; > > UUID LIBID_CHelloLib = { /* 2573F890-CFEE-101A-9A9F-00AA00342820 */ > 0x2573F890, > 0xCFEE, > 0x101A, > { 0x9A, 0x9F, 0x00, 0xAA, 0x00, 0x34, 0x28, 0x20 } > }; > > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include "pshlo.h" > #include "shlo.hxx" > #include "clsid.h" > > int _cdecl main( > int arg { > fprintf(stderr, "Object path must be specified\n"); > return(1); > } > > // get print string > if(argc > 2) > mbstowcs(wcsT, argv[2], strlen(argv[2]) + 1); > else > wcscpy(wcsT, L"Hello World"); > > printf("Linking to object %ws\n", wcsPath); > printf("Text String %ws\n", wcsT); > > // Initialize the OLE libraries > hRslt = CoInitializeEx(NULL, COINIT_MULTITHREADED); > > if(SUCCEEDED(hRslt)) { > > hRslt = CreateFileMoniker(wcsPath, &pmk); > if(SUCCEEDED(hRslt)) > hRslt = BindMoniker(pmk, 0, IID_IHello, (void **)&pHello); > > if(SUCCEEDED(hRslt)) { > > // print a string out > pHello->PrintSz(wcsT); > > Sleep(2000); > ulCnt = pHello->Release(); > } > else > printf("Failure to connect, status: %lx", hRslt); > > // Tell OLE we are going away. > CoUninitialize(); > } > > return(0); > } > > > Apprentice Hacker > ================ > #!/usr/local/bin/perl > $msg="Hello, world.\n"; > if ($#ARGV >= 0) { > while(defined($arg=shift(@ARGV))) { > $outfilename = $arg; > open(FILE, ">" . $outfilename) || die "Cant write $arg: $!\n"; > print (FILE $msg); > close(FILE) || die "Cant close $arg: $!\n"; > } > } else { > print ($msg); > } > 1; > > > Experienced Hacker > ================= > #include > #define S "Hello, World\n" > main(){exit(printf(S) == strlen(S) ? 0 : 1);} > > > Seasoned Hacker > ============== > % cc -o a.out ~/src/misc/hw/hw.c > % a.out > > > Guru Hacker > ========== > % cat > Hello, world. > ^D > > > New Manager > ========== > 10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD" > 20 END > > > Middle Manager > ============= > mail -s "Hello, world." bob@b12 > Bob, could you please write me a program that prints "Hello,world."? > I need it by tomorrow. > ^D > > > Senior Manager > ============= > % zmail jim > I need a "Hello, world." program by this afternoon. > > > Chief Executive > ============== > % letter > letter: Command not found. > % mail > To: ^X ^F ^C > % help mail > help: Command not found. > % damn! > !: Event unrecognized > % logout
You can't handle the truth.
It looks like the govt deems the critical threshold to be compiled code: "Though deciding that the printed book chapter containing encryption code could be exported, the Export Administration stated that export of the book in electronic form would require a license if the text contained 5D002 software"
You can compile it here, or export the source and have someone compile it overseas, but you cannot export the compiled program - that is the govt.'s argument. here's a twist - can you bundle a comiler and installer so that to the end user the compiler just looks like an installer?
- "Take a look at what I found out: the Motion Picture Association is
- encrypting content on DVDs! Not only that, but this is how they do it. Another thing I noticed, they use some sort of code to prevent the play of DVDs purchased in one region from being played in another! This is wrong! Take a look at my source code and see it for yourself!"
The source code is a functional part of your discussion of your beliefs as to the wrongness of the motion picture industry and the methods in which they are attempting to control that industry. It honestly sounds like free speech to me, and nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about reverse-engineering or trade secrets. It should be obvious that free speech is too important to infringe.I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
Most people simply do not want to spend the effort to understand. And large companies like Mattel will do their best to bully the minority because they know that they can get away with it.
But maybe with persistence and good luck we may be fortunate enough to bring a bit of common sense back to our legal systems stance toward individual rights on the electronic frontier.
all persons, living and dead, are purely coincidental. - Kurt Vonnegut
isolate destructive device from people who can be hurt by it. with the worm this means an isolated network, with the nuke an out ot the way part of new mexico.
get all damageable entities out of the destructive path before activation of the destructive mechanism.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
But wait ... DeCSS now legal does this mean that there is no more DeCSS cases? Whoa ... does this mean opensource DVD players? Whoa wait ... I mean what about ways to openly decrypt trusted encryption??? There's no real reason you'd need something like that unless you wanted to do bad things to the computer world.
Last Woo Hoo PGP :-)
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
That is the whole point of the ruling. The rights of the expressive nature of the code (its abilty to provide a communications medium between two people, just like a book) outweighs the limitations on the functional nature of the code (its ability to make the computer do something). The court has ruled that uncompiled code (binaries would be a different matter, as they have no purpose other than making a computer do something) is more like the book than the bomb. This makes sense when you think about it. I could easilly argue that I sent my friend the code to the worm I just wrote merely as an acedemic excercise. I wanted to show him how to do something, and the code in this worm simply illustrates that point very well. Now if I sent him compliled binaries of my new worm, I am in effect sending him a bomb. He can't learn anything useful from it, so there is no expression.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
hypergeek wrote: That's where the fuzzy gray area of "speech with functional significance" comes in...
This is so true. Remember that source and object code were validated as speech in the early 1980s during the copyright debate.
I'm baffled about this decision alters existing law, or if it merely reaffirms it -- or even if it limits it, because "speech with functional significance" is not what object code is. Yet object code is protected by copyright and was defended as speech.
Yes, copyright itself doesn't define speech, but its implementation has paralleled the Constitutional concept of speech for decades.
Perhaps the implications of tech have so befuddled (and broken down) the legal system that each turn and twist in the tech road has to be adjudicated individually to arrive at the same old conclusions.
Dennis
http://maltedmedia.com/
No Money (Lullaby for Bill)
http://www.mp3.com/bathory/
And you've studied and understand and speak both languages? Galois Theory and Serial Harmony? If your grasp of serial harmony is even at the mathematical level of algebra, then you should be able to whistle the Moses und Aron row... yes?
Dennis
http://maltedmedia.com/
No Money (Lullaby for Bill)
http://www.mp3.com/bathory/
This tells me that "speech" as I consider it is almost anything from which information about the creator can be infered.
Louis Wu
Louis Wu
Thinking is one of hardest types of work.
Say that I have an idea for a story, and I fill out the plot, characters, and background in my head. But I didn't write the story, I just made sure that I had a good grasp of what the elements were. I can't do anything with my story until I implement it as code: written words.
There is a huge gray area here, because implementation seems to be the province of patents, while ideas seem to be the province of copyrights. But now the idea is merging with the implementation of the idea such that the two cannot be easily seperated, if they can be seperated at all. I have an idea for a story, but I can't copyright it until I implement it as written English. But if I do that with an idea for a program, the program seems to no longer be an idea, but a process/implementation. (As far as I can see, the only current distinction is that source code isn't implementation, but the compiled code is. What's magical about a compiler?)
Louis Wu
Louis Wu
Thinking is one of hardest types of work.
Okay, so source code is speech. But so are books. And magazines. And you can't simply put them online. The authors have to give you a permission to do so.
But that's not all. If I find out some trade secrets and post them online, then I can get sued by the owners of the information. Well, believe it or not, but if source code is speech, then code to DeCSS is description of the CSS algorithm, and breaks the law. It's that simple. The fact that it's been reverse engineered instead of stolen from somebody's office probably won't make much of a difference.
DeCSS battle is far from over. But this decision may show that the Court of Appeals isn't all that backwards, and maybe they'll make some more reasonable rulings regarding technology.
m
This in no way affects the distribution of OBJECT CODE (applications) either way.
Read the ruling ... he says source code is "the primary means of communication amongst programmers" and that's the basis of the decision.
And the FSF and open source projects already had the GPL which was the legal backing for their business model.
Don't be fooled into thinking that the 1st Amendment is "specific legal backing" for anything. It's a catch-all. Don't get me wrong, it's GREAT that this has been passed, but it actually permits very little that wasn't permitted already.
I await the DeCSS repercussions with fascination ...
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
Fight Spammers!
It seems like you do give a shit, since it bothers you so much. Why is that, because you wish you had the guts to stand up for your rights instead of bending over and taking it?
Why don't you say who you are? Coward
Fight Spammers!
What...truth? Since when did it have to be true, so long as it is our opinion? I was under the impression that free speech was any kind of speech, regardless of truth or advancement provided. Personally, this is strange: I thought I was allowed to say whatever I want, assuming tim and manner is appropriate, as well as nothing libelous/slanderous. Since when did we all have to be 'productive' members of society?
Regardless of that, I suppose this is a partial victory merely because it is intellectually stimulating. It provides interesting questions: where is the line between function and expression? Who is to be the judge of what expression is? Isn't function inherently expression? It boggles the mind.
===================
http://www.yourmothernaked.com
heh...obviously i included stdio.h. html is the most worthless language in the world. oops.
So what? rewrite it in an interpreted language to show the stupidity of the difference. You then can distribute the source and the interpreter given that one is free speech and the other is completely legal.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
comments are often one of the most expressive elements of code!
Though unquestionably expressive, these things identified by the Court are not traditional speech. Particularly, a musical score cannot be read by the majority of the public but can be used as a means of communication among musicians. Likewise, computer source code, though unintelligible to many, is the preferred method of communication among computer programers.
ROCK ON!
As a long-time musician and burgeoning programmer, this is the killer analogy right here, IMO. If this argument doesn't end the dabate, I don't know what will. :)
"The world doesn't really need more busy people, maybe not even more intelligent people. It needs 'deep people'..."
I can't emphasize enough how important this is, in my opinion. I can't yet express it but there's a kernel of something here, something deep and important about the culture war that's going on today. It's very important that we can laugh at ourselves. In my experience, those who can go far off course much less often than those who can't. I haven't worked out the karmic connection but it's there.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
But I still aver that the First Amendment is as important as the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta says, "The laws apply to everyone", but it says nothing about those laws. Such a system need not be a free one -- the law can still specify what you are to do, think, or feel. The law can still allow retaliation for the expression of "improper" belief. But under the First Amendment, you are free to think what you want and to express your thoughts.
To put it another way: Under the Magna Carta, you can pass a law that says, "Two plus two equals five. Anyone who says otherwise is committing treason." As long as it did apply to everyone, the principles of the Magna Carta are upheld. (And, I suppose, as long as an assembly OKd the law.) But the First Amendment allows you to say, emphatically, "Two plus two equals four" and to avoid legal rataliation.
Of course it also allows you to say "Two plus two equals six". The First Amendment makes you free; it doesn't necessarily make you right. But what a wonderfully optimistic philosophy it is! So long as everyone is allowed to speak, then someone will speak the truth, and the truth will win out. I find that an uplifting view of the human race. It might not be true :) but it is uplifting.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Day by day I am more and more amazed with this mighty engine, invented almost by accident by 55 guys in Philadelphia. (Before you get on my case, I know similar concepts had been pushed by several of the states... I was going for historical resonance. :) )
There's a sweet symbolism in this being the _First_ (as in foremost) Amendment. It wouldn't have the same power as "Article VI" or whatever...
This week, for a little bit, I can begin to hope again.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Since the compiled product is a TOOL and not a vehicle for free speech, the judge can still keep DeCSS illegal. HOWEVER, I'd be willing to bet that distribution of the SOURCE is now legal.. but compiling it and using it is NOT.
IANAL either, but once you have the source, I would think that merely compiling it would fall under fair use. It'd be just like gzipping it or whatever. But yes, actually running the code with the intent of doing something illegal would still be...illegal.
This raises an obvious question: If you're going to go to the trouble of compiling the code, what next? Does that *automatically* mean that you are going to use it for 'underhanded' purposes? Controversial as it may be, and as broken as the logic may be, this is the argument that the MPAA/legal system is likely to use in order to bypass the 6th Circuit Court's ruling.
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
#!/usr/bin/perl
@enemy = ('MPAA','RIAA','Microsoft');
$now_ = @enemy -1;
while ($now_ >= 0)
{
&destroytheevil($enemy[$now_]);
$now_ --;
}
exit($now_);
sub destroytheevil
{
print "Fuck the Evil @_\n";
}
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
I just wanted to throw in an analogy. Assuming that the DeCSS source is legal. How can the compiled source be illegal. The going argument is that the compiled source is a tool for piracy.
Well, in a similar instance, a gun is a tool for killing. Yet owning a gun is not illegal. Using a gun for target practice or hunting is not illegal. Just using it to kill humans/endangered species is.
The point? If you use DeCSS to decode and watch DVD's on you Linux Box you should not be found guilty of a crime. If you use it to decode DVD's and then generate VCD's and sell them on the streets of NYC that's another issue. Of course I believe if you own something you should be free to do with it as you please. Even if that means replicating and distributing it. by the way IANAL lol!
When I try to run this post I get the following error:
Search pattern not terminated at post.pl line 6.
Can somebody please help me, thanks in advance
We've always known that source can be a form of expression. Look at the obfuscated C contest.
I'm allowed to say "anything I want" according to the 1st ammendment, but I for instance recite a copyrighted work to an audience without the author's permission.
DeCSS is not under copyright, except with the GPL. Just because it theoretically allows copying of copyrighted material, doesn't make it illegal. Furthermore DeCSS really only allows you to play encrypted DVDs. Viewing the source allows you to make a program to copy them, but the source can't be stopped because of this because it is free speech. That's just like banning a photocopier or prohibiting the verbal description of how to use one, because it could be used to duplicate copyrighted material.
Now if DeCSS were copyrighted by MPAA this would be a different story. But it isn't. Or if DeCSS posed a quantifiable "clear and present danger" per se, like a virus, akin to the classic "shouting 'fire' in a crowded room". But it doesn't. Those are the tests speech has to go through for regulation, and it doesn't meet either of them. (sure there's obscenity, but we all know that that's not a truly valid way around the first ammendment or the free speech principle. Besides, who would argue that the DeCSS source code is obscene? It would have to offend the average "reasonable" citizen, who can't tell the difference between source code and the tax code)
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
I take this as the first step to acknowledging my source code as a work of art. The artist, gundeman.
A Poem by DjDanny.
printf("Hello world\n");
if(OS == FREE)
printf("Hurrah\n");
else
printf("You've been ripped off, mate!\n");
printf("Goodbye all\n");
(n)ot Copyright at all
I suggest you take a look at Linux's source code. Or even funnier: QMail's source code. Some good programmers do hate comments.
"I would say the reason such opinions are read are because the legal field is, above all, an ongoing conversation among rational people"
I can go for long periods of time at work (where I write software) or with my friends without talking about legal matters. Some think that the carrion is best left to the jackals.
"Just because one is not a lawyer does not mean one cannot have a rational argument about a legal issue. To assume otherwise is just as preposterous as to assume that only programmers can have an opinion on whether a piece of software is of high quality or not."
In terms of the new computer users, I wasn't referring to people who express opinions on matters of software quality, I was talking about people that feign knowledge about a given subject. It's OK for people to talk about opinions of experiences they've had. What annoys others is when people with no experience in the field they are talking about give advice and act as if they knew what they were talking about. There's a difference between "For what it's worth, I think that software package sucks because it crashes a lot" and the comment "That software package sucks, because it keeps forgetting to release dynamically allocated memory causing heap corruption and loss of stack pointers". One is an opinion, and the other is an opinion propped up by completely fabricated "reasons".
How many times have you seen somebody post something on slashdot that said this-or-that WILL or WILL NOT happen, because of points X, Y, and Z? I've seen that a whole lot. But I have NEVER seen the justification for points X, Y, and Z when people talk about legal issues, and that's what annoys me.
"The more detailed and low-level the argument, the more professional expertise becomes an issue. Hence "IANAL" becomes a necessary disclaimer. "
I agree with this in spirit, but really, I feel that it should read "The more detailed and low-level the legal argument, the less likely it is to contain real, factual information".
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
because that's how much respect is due.
Lea
Some programmers (who are not lawyers) study legal issues concerning free software intensively, and when they comment on legal issues they make every effort to be correct.
It still makes sense from them to state IANAL, because when a lawyer gives legal advice, they can be held accountable for that advice. So much like a patient can sue a doctor for messing up a medical operation, the recipeint of legal advice can sue the lawyer if bad advice is given.
So it's a sensible legal precaution. it's shorthand for something like "No person should rely on the contents of this comment without first obtaining advice from a qualified professional person. This comment is provided on the terms and understanding that I are not responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of information in this comment, nor for any error in or omission from this comment. I expressly disclaim all and any liability and responsibility to any person, whether a reader of this comment or not, in respect of anything, and of the consequences of anything, done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance, whether wholly or partially, upon the whole or any part of the contents of this comment."
This really doesn't change much. The ruling simply confirms that code is speech, but that doesn't mean that it can't be regulated.
What is interesting is that the Court adopted a slightly stricter test than has been "traditionally" required. This is the test used in Turner Broadcasting where the government not only has to prove a substantial government interest in regulating the non-speech expressive elements (the court never said that code was 100% speech), but has to demonstrate that there was evidence for the government to conclude that it was necessary to regulate the speech.
So, this ruling may be used to persuade other courts that the government had to have a good reason to enact the DMCA if it regulates speech. It will help programmers and free speech advocates, but it is NOT a home run.
Note: I have taken great liberties with the actual legal standards here, but this is all basically accurate.
So you can write a book on how to de-CSS DVDs, then...
* Actually, the USA tried to do that with Viêt-Nàm 35 years ago...
--
Worse things, say, like looking at their JAVA source code for One-Click Shopping (tm)???
--
A given ASM instruction name corresponds directly with a certain instruction in the compiled form of the the program. Since you can construct the original source from the compiled code, it could be argued that ASM binaries (or perhaps ALL binaries) are simply another format used in representing the concepts in source code.
Here is the quote you are referring to, from Supreme Court Justice Holmes, as given in Schenck v. United States (1919):
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."
If you were to stand up in a crowded theatre today, and yell "fire", most likely the people around you would look at you like you were an idiot, then tell you to shut up.
This analogy dates back to when theatres were firetraps, and a theatre fire could take hundreds of lives. Take for instance, the Iroquois Theater fire of December 30, 1903. During a matinee performance, a piece of scenery caught fire. The doors to the theatre were locked, and over 600 people were killed in approximately 15 minutes.
Theatre fires were the airline crashes of the time. They killed hundreds of people at a time, and in many cases, when a fire became apparent, people were crushed to death in the stampede towards the exits.
What Justice Holmes was saying was obvious to his contemporaries. You are not allowed to falsely create irrational panic in a situation where the panic is likely to lead to death. For instance, if you were to observe someone standing at the edge of a roof, peering over the edge, you would not be allowed to sneak up behind him, scream "LOOK OUT" in his ear, then claim first amendment protection for your actions when he jumped to his death.
Note that Justice Holmes even qualified his statement by stating that a false cry of fire would not be protected speech. If there really was a fire, you would be completely justified in yelling "fire!"
Now that theatres are basically safe places, with wide outward-opening doors, sprinker systems, fire-proof curtains, electric lights instead of white-hot carbon arcs, and safety film instead of explosive nitrate film, the analogy doesn't really mean much anymore. However, the quote lives on, and is regularly misapplied.
Justice Holmes didn't mean that you aren't allowed to yell "fire" because it's annoying, he meant that you falsely use speech to cause panic, resulting in possible injury or death, then 1st amendment protection of free speech does not apply.
Anyway, this common-sense interpretation of the first amendment has nothing to do with DeCSS. The only "irrational panic" here is on the part of the MPAA, and it's not likely to lead to imminent death or injury.
IIRC, the injunctions against various parties in the DeCSS cases were to prevent the distribution and posting of the source code on their respective web sites - since source code is now regarded as speech and is now protected by the same rights [until a higher precedent comes along], this case appears to kill stone dead such injunctions.
:-).
IANAL.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
You should be using extrans mode - I made this mistake repeatedly some time ago.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The obvious thing that comes out now is people discussing how this affects DeCSS.
;)
Think of it this way.
If the DeCSS guys, instead of publishing DeCSS software, had simply written a technical essay about their reverse engineering efforts and how dvd encryption worked, including some keys... what would happen? Would they be sued under DMCA? Certainly not with as much zeal as they are now... and not withe the same clauses.
Attacking them for writing a doucment would be very taboo... perhaps they could be sued if they obtained the information illegally... but....
if they write software, and distribute it, there is a clear 'product' that is used to defeat a copy protection mechanism. That IS what it does (or at least, according to THEM... we all know that it's not really copy protection. Then again... could you or I copy dvd's with our measly hardware without it?
Now.. this line between a written essay and the software that implements the discussion of that essay is blurred. The source code IS now speech, just like the essay woudl be (until a higher court decides otherwise)
They also make an analogy that I liked.
Musicians can communicate with sheet music. Indeed, this is a technical, logical symbolic series of instructions to musicians. To normal people, i'ts gobbledygook, but to a musician, it's language, pure and simple.
To a programmer, C is a langauge, not a bunch of machine-readable gobbldygook. The easiest way for a programmer to describe to another programmer something like how his new found decryption system works is to show code. Writing a textual description would not be as effective a communication means. Therefore, it's speech. Just as a composer's sheet music is protected speech.
Don't abuse the 'fair use'. There isn't a 'fair use' clause as an exception to every law.
In copyright, fair use deals with what is a 'fair' use of a copyrighted work.
Now.. realize that the DeCSS caseis not directly a copyright case, but a DMCA cas, whereby the tools who's primary purpose is to circumvent a copy control mechanism are *illegal*.
So. Source, describing the method by which this can be done may be protected speech, but actual compiled code to do it may not be.
Here's why DMCA is so fucked up.
Although it falls under 'fair use' for you to copy your DVD, copying that DVD (which you are allowed) requires you to circumvent a copy control mechanism, which requires the useof an ILLEGAL tool, and is an ILLEGAL act. So although having the copy is legal, the act of circumventing the copy protection to make that copy is illegal.
That's messed up.
IANAL, but today's American society is SO litigous that I feel I must clearly state that IANAL lest someone take my well-worded advice as true legal advice and sues my ass for pretending to be a lawyer.
IANAL.
It is plainly accepted that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.
It is logical, then, that it is every man's duty to understand and obey the law.
Why the, in court, are we so often informed that we are not capable of understanding these laws, and that we require a professional lawyer to understand it for us? If the courts admit we cannot legally know the law, then how can they hold us responsible for breaking it?
I agree that this is a bad idea. There is program I have to maintain that uses a homebrew string class. Everytime the program crashes, it's in the string class. I think anyone who writes their own string class deserves to be shot. The bounds checking that is necessary to do it correctly is hard to do without bugs. At least with a built in string class, the bugs have been flushed out by the multitudes of programmers who use the standard libraries.
That program was originally written in 1997. I think String became pretty much standard in 1998. It's now taught as part of the language.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
I agree. To state that DeCSS was created only to promote piracy would be like stating that the baseball bat was only created to physically assault people. Arguably, it _could_ be used maliciously and in all likelyhood will be to some degree. However, if the judicial system had ruled at some point that the baseball bat was illegal on the grounds that it could seriously injure people, the sport of baseball would never have gotten off the ground. Or hey, what if the government had decided at the arrival of the microcomputer that computers themselves were a vehicle for ceopyright infringement so should be banned? We certainly wouldn't be chatting it up on Slashdot. I can think of lots of examples. What if big chunks of hard stone were made illegal because they can be used to destroy peoples' windows thereby gaining access to their homes? I know I'm getting off the deepend here, but come on. Does the malicious potential outweigh the benefit?
"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny, however, is allev
; Brute force /. fuck asm
.MODEL small
.STACK 200h
.DATA
.CODE ;)
; Copyright (c) 2000 Dylan Griffiths
; This program is released under the conditions of the GNU public licence v2
; Please see http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html for more information.
Fuck DB 'Fuck the '
FUCK_LEN EQU $ - Fuck
Enemies DB ' NSA MSFTMPAARIAA'
ENEMY_LEN EQU 4
Endl DB '!',13,10
ENDL_LEN EQU $ - Endl
FUDGE DW ?
main:
; Setup data segment
mov ax, @data
mov ds, ax
mov si, 4 ; 4 x loop
prn_loop:
mov ax, 4
mul si
mov [FUDGE], ax
; Get our "fudge factor" for offset in enemy string
mov bx, 1
mov ah, 40h
mov cx, FUCK_LEN
mov dx, OFFSET Fuck
int 21h
mov bx, 1
mov ah, 40h
mov cx, ENEMY_LEN
mov di, Offset Enemies
add di, FUDGE
mov FUDGE, di
; Kludge around x86 lack of general registers. Gets proper offset.
; There *is* a better way to do this, but this way is fun.
mov dx, [FUDGE]
int 21h
mov bx, 1
mov ah, 40h
mov cx, ENDL_LEN
mov dx, OFFSET Endl
int 21h
dec si ; One less bottle of beer on the wall
jnz prn_loop
; End
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
END main
; Compiles fine with TASM 5 (tasm fuck, tlink fuck, fuck)
; Now I know why basic was written,
; this took me an hour!
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The idea that source code is free speech has always been obvious to me. Think about it. I can goto Amazon.com (if we're not boycotting them) and order books on how to build and atomic bomb or emp gun or assault rifle, how to break into computers and wreak havoc, and many other worse things I'm sure.... all of these have been very explicitly labelled FREE SPEECH. Countless trials uphold this statement... And surely "malicious" source code is not worse than any of these in its worst form. So if you needed to find a legal way of justifying why source code should have first amendment rights, look no further.... "Surely your honor, this book," lawyer holds a copy of _The Anarchy Cookbook_ (yes it exists in print form), "is much more dangerous than this.", lawyer holds up floppy disk with the RTM worm source code.
People just don't understand that a clever hack, even a malicious one sometimes, is art, and cannot be suppressed. (Screw you, Guiliani!!!)
Kspett
Kevin "Cash Money" Spett
Ignore your rights and they go away.
DeCSS code is legal now!
Hooray....
Kspett
Kevin "Cash Money" Spett
Ignore your rights and they go away.
The idea that source code is free speech has always been obvious to me. Think about it. I can goto Amazon.com (if we're not boycotting them) and order books on how to build and atomic bomb or emp gun or assault rifle, how to break into computers and wreak havoc, and many other worse things I'm sure.... all of these have been very explicitly labelled FREE SPEECH. Countless trials uphold this statement... And surely "malicious" source code is not worse than any of these in its worst form. So if you needed to find a legal way of justifying why source code should have first amendment rights, llok no further.... "Surely your honor, this book," lawyer holds a copy of _The Anarchy Cookbook_ (yes it exists in print form), "is much more dangerous than this.", lawyer holds up floppy disk with the RTM worm source code.
People just don't understand that a clever hack, even a malicious one sometimes, is art, and cannot be suppressed. (Screw you, Guiliani!!!)
Kspett
Kevin "Cash Money" Spett
Ignore your rights and they go away.
Some of [us] can write and have written programs directly in machine code, by toggling switches, or punching in hex, etc..
The end result is that the "source code" is no different that the executable machine code. Why shouldn't that also be protected speech?
I have to write in a high-level language to have protected speech?
Even if you have the capacity to enter the bytes through a hex editor, ALT-#-#-#, use punch cards, use toggle switches, or whistle a stream of bits into a 300 baud modem it should still be protected as speech. I think the resulting collection of bits (which I referred to as binaries) should be protected as well. My point, though, was that protecting your chosen method of expressing your ideas, and keeping them available to others if you so choose, is more important than protecting the resulting executable string of bits. The resulting string of bits should be protected as well. But, as I mentioned earlier, that's another battle.
numb
"Patents cover machines and processes.
Copyrights cover particular expressions."
Obviously, we haven't solved the issue of particular expressions that implement a process (code).
The existing laws will not solve the issue. There is need for constitutional clarification as to the nature of code.
Of course, the code I've inherited at many of my jobs has been kitch...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
So in other words, your whole DeCSS attention-mongering post is crap, as others have already pointed out.
If you're curious about the layout of the U.S. Circuit Courts you can go here:
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Fed-Ct/
Best regards,
SEAL
However, the law is one thing and the *text* of it is another. Just like a programs function and the souce code are two different things.
Lawyers and judges are experts in translating the desired *function* of a law into law text and vice versa. Computer geeks are experts in translating the desired function of a computer program into source code (and again vv)
The subject before the law as well as the user of a program must always have the right to know the full *function* of the law/program. Unfortunately it often takes an expert to figure this out.
In juridics as well as in computer science, an amateur savant might prefer to express his opinions about the desired function in code/formal law speek since it is easier. However, only a proffessional (or a fool) claims responsibility for his work.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Reading the book (compiling source code) and building the bomb (runing the program) Detonating it (using it to crack the DVD encryption)
Sounds like pretty much the same thing to me.
Er, I really don't think so. Even if the Anarchist Cookbook supposedly uses "common household items" those items are not part of the book. The book is instructions only. AFAIK however, the code is the instructions is the ingredients is the device. I don't see it as being that easy to claim that it is just instructions like the directions on how to biuld a bomb. It seems more like you are sending your friend a fully functional suitcase bomb with a note explaining how to press the buttons to start the timer - then claiming that it is merely a "very detailed explaination of how to build a bomb with all components painstakingly represented" that he "builds" by pressing the buttons.
Now I can think of some people who might need such a detailed "representation" of a bomb, but no one would call it instructions instead of the real thing. And I'm not claiming that source code could be the moral equivelent of a bomb. But I do think that it is essentially intellectually dishonest to claim that code is "just instructions, just like the Anarchist Cookbook." It occupies a different position than simple instructions or simple speach. What that means can be argued at length, but the difference will still be there.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
It is supposed to be logical. Though it's not. You don't have a CPU making the final determination, but you have human judges making the determination.
In software, if you don't like the universe, you redefine it. You can't do that with the law. You can't re-init (or redefine) classes or variables in the law. You almost always have to consider stare decisis. Unless yoe get the legislator to rewrite the rules for you (and sometimes it takes payoffs).
Fight Spammers!
It misses two things: 1. The DMCA. 2. Composit work copyrights. Since the DMCA is new, there won't be much caselaw on it yet What counts in caselaw (usually) is what occurs at the appeal court level, not the trial court level. Though there is some exception. Website urls are not copyrightable in themselfs. What may be, is the composition of this list. I have read some earlier cases, which look at how much thought and analysis when towards the composition of the list. This analysis ruled that phone books and (the ProPhone CDs) were not copyrightable(but clickwrap won it for them). Then how much work was put in for the compilation (Motorolla v. NBA I think).
With the DMCA, there will be much litigation and abuse. It will be amended soon, if we fight!
Fight Spammers!
It still has to be litigated with DeCSS and CPHack and such. But this would take money going up the big companies.
Fight Spammers!
- I take time to get medical treatment for an RSI.
- I am fired for taking the time to get treatment that is successful.
- They pay a judgment, but continue with a countersuit of libel.
- They dismiss this countersuit, when a judge asks what is libelous.
Do you assert that Mattel's actions with regards to CPHack are not abusive? Do you assert that threatening some kid who posts Barbie jokes is not abusive?A personal attack is a personal attack. Just because you are too much of a coward to identify yourself does not make it less personal. If I mug you does it make it any less personal, if I wear a mask?
Fight Spammers!
Fight Spammers!
Fight Spammers!
Do you know why the site is up?
Did you ever consider that I put the site up to:
I never said that an AC statement that is true is not true. What I am saying is that the opinion of an AC has less weight than someone who will take credit (or debit) for their opnion. That a person responds with name calling is given less weight. And a person who just calls names as an AC probably has a lead laced water supply, but is smart enough to realize it.
Isn't this getting a little off topic?
Fight Spammers!
Fight Spammers!
Right on brother.
:) and ignoring the rest of the karma whoring fluff.
I think I'm supposed to be a good citizen of slashdot and denounce AC posts that don't toe the slashdot party line, but the more I read slashdot, the more I find myself only reading the troll posts (to see what new stuff they can come up with
Think about it! When was the last time that you saw a high-rated comment that contained an opinion about free software or linux that was shocking or new? Now on the other hand, let's take a look at the trolls. They've given us all kinds of innovations - Natalie Portman, Grits, the flood-posting, OOG the caveman, nickname cloning, smargles, and all kinds of other things. Oh, and reading the flames full of righteous indignation is sometimes just too funny.
Of course I think I used to be someone who took slashdot seriously, but I think that stopped at about the time when it was sold.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
so if C/C++ could be considered analog to abstract art or jazz music, with a deeper communicative meaning which is not immediately obvious but which holds extremely deep meaning to one who is familiar with it..
:)
then i guess INTERCAL would be that woman who covered herself in chocolate naked, masturbated using a crucifix, and got her National Endowment for the Arts funding revoked..?
at any rate this is probably the most important legal decision that will be made in the next decade and i shouldn't be making jokes about it..
the ruling pertains to encryption, but anyone interested in emulators, portscanners, mp3 distribution programs, programs to break/decrypt copy/playback/usage protection in commercial software, hacking tools, things that haven't been thought of yet, etc-- or anyone who would like to see how one works, or at least anyone who thinks that it should be legal to create such tools even if usage of the tools would in most cases be illegal-- should rejoice. This is what we've been waiting for a court to say for years.
I'd like to hope that we'll see a lot less now of corporations attempting to suppress information in source code form about things they don't want done.. but, of course, most such cases against emulators or programs such as cphack or decss were pretty damn shaky anyway, and were initiated not to be won, but to bankrupt the defendant via legal bills. So the fact that the cases are now even _shakier_ because the source code has First Amendment rights shouldn't cause a huge problem.
On the bright side, this should encourage more emulator makers to go open source
-mcc-baka
http://drowed.cx/decss/
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
IMHO (and IANAL :-) technology can become arbitrarily complexicated, so it really is possible for parts of it to transcend the understanding of the common man, unless he takes the time to study it in detail. OTOH, if human laws ever transcend the common man's understanding, then the law is defective. The very needs and purpose of law requires an upper bound on how hard it is to understand.
Law should be no more complex than ethics (or at least within a constant factor of complexity). I'm not suggesting that law has actually stayed within those bounds. But ideally, it should. It is evil for any law to exist that I am expected to obey, but not able to understand without specialization.
I think it is a good thing that we peons discuss law -- and try our best to sound authoritative about it. It sends a message (though I doubt that it is heard) that it is our law. And remember that we are all the source of the law's power. If a lawyer or judge ever talks down to me on the topic of law, I will consider that to be arrogant. It's arrogant, because it assumes that law is a black art and the knowledge is limited to the elite.
That said, though, I do in fact appeciate seeing lawyers post on Slashdot. My favorite Slashdot poster happens to be one of them.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
class Soapbox {
public String[] enemy;
public Soapbox() {
enemy = new String['MPAA','RIAA','Microsoft','NSA'];
public static void Main() {
for (int i=0; i<enemy.length; i++) {
System.out.println("Fuck the evil " + enemy[i] + "!");
}
}
}
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
IANAL
from the original doc (Factual Background section):
"Although it found that four programs were subject to the Regulations, the Export Administration found that the first chapter of Junger's textbook, Computers and the Law, was an allowable unlicensed export. Though deciding that the printed book chapter containing encryption code could be exported, the Export Administration stated that export of the book in electronic form would require a license if the text contained 5D002 software."
Despite all the bla bla about sour code being expressive and speech and whatnot bla bla (which i agree with...) it seems an important logical part of the argument is that (if i understand correctly) the same material was legally "exported" in the form of a book, whereas the online version was met with restrictions.
So it seems that this ruling might be more of a 'the internet is not to be subject to stupid restrictions that would not be placed on, say, books' then a 'code is free speech' type response.
dunno, anyone got any opinions on this? is there a lawyer in the house?
/IANAL
adrien
adrien cater
boring.ch
Point and Grunt
Much like a mathematical or scientific formula, one can describe the function and design of encryption software by a prose explanation; however, for individuals fluent in a computer programming language, source code is the most efficient and precise means by which to communicate ideas about cryptography.
Another judge with a clue.
Maybe there ought to be some kind of prize to recognize jurists who demonstrate real insight into computer technology.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Although there are still a few more proceedings to go through, this is good.
First off, its a step in the right direction. Open source wins once again.
Second off, although the court hearing was done within the barriers of the constitution, the opposing sides of case have been known to dissent in as well.
Third and firstmost, you are correct about the TOOL part, yet incorrect about compiling and using.
Fourth and thirdmost, the reason that you're incorrect about the compilation and using is because it will be legal to execute the written code if it is a legal amount of code in the firstplace, meaning that it does not make its writer liable for anything, or cause a national security, or harm anyone in a significant/reasonable way.
Fifth, this goes along well with the possibility of having Microsoft having to release some of its source code. Now the courts can have a writ of mandamis that it be handed over now that the actuall open source IS legal. Before this, all of that banter would have been ILLEGAL!
Sixth, my fifth reason leads me into my next part: Open source dominates because there is nothing more to hand over. DRI may be a problem, however.
Seventh, you can't triple stamp a double stamp, like in "Dumb and Dumber"
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
Copyrights cover particular expressions.
The two domains do not overlap.
Therefore, if code is protected for First Amendment reasons, then patents on code cannot be enforced; code is expression, not a machine. Copyright can protect a particular expression, but cannot prevent somebody from using something. (In fact, a little-known part of copyright law is that if you independently come up with something that is copyrighted by something else, you will both have a copyright. As long as you don't look at someone's implementation of something, you cannot be prosecuted (successfully) for copyright infringement.)
Contradiction: Under the conceptions of current law, there should not be anything protectable by both patent law and copyright law; however, the judge in this opinion is implying that code is an expression, thus under copyright law, and the Patent office is quite clearly granting patents based on things (like RSA) that are nothing but code.
Something has to break. This doesn't prove anything, except that current law is incapable of handling "code"... but this proves that quite handily IMHO.
> However, this does very little, if anything, for DeCSS.
True. At least not directly. What it does do is establish that one of our most fundamental rights applies on the internet. Without that, all the other battles are lost before they start.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Somebody, please, either put the final crushing blow to my silly thought that slashdot isn't just full of arrogant posturing fools, or tell me what it is about unsolicited and totally uninformed legal advice that gives everybody here such a stiffy.
/. for legal advice.
Wow, I thought this was just a conversation about a legal ruling. I didn't realize people came to
Welcome to BenchDot:
News for Lawyers, Stuff that Sues
(arrogant posturing fool #30840, reporting for duty, SIR!)
--
+&x
I agree. But the important thing is that the source would be legal under this interpretation. It bothers me much less that the compiled version could still be illegal...No, not because I'm a Linux zealot used to compiling code, but because SOURCE CODE IS EXPRESSION.
Even a mediocre programmer can see the beauty of a well written program, and gain enlightenment through it. This judge does seem to understand that aspect of it.
While the legality of using the resulting compilation may still be in doubt to some, at least the judge understands the most important part--that source is expression. Binaries may be just a tool easily constructed by the instructions the source code provides and that leaves the use of DeCSS in question--but that's another battle.
If the DeCSS source is illegal then we can not use it to build the tools we need to use the new wave of physically distributed media (DVD) to it's fullest potential. If the binary of DeCSS is illegal while the source is not then it only makes it slightly harder to produce those tools--it will just mean that we have to compile it into a bigger program which will play it or analyze it or whatever. I realize that this hinders the modularity required to make DeCSS utilize DVD in the most efficient manner but at least it doesn't make it impossible. Like I said, that's another battle.
numb
I live in the society determined by US law. I have an interest in whether that law is reasonable and serves me, or whether that law is unreasonable and serves some special interest at the expense of private citizens. Democracy is based on the idea that the views of some idiot on the street are relevant to running government.
So, I comment on law, I argue about it. I'm not necessarily correct as to the "who'll win the superbowl" type arguing about what the outcome of a court case will be, but I am entitled to my opinion as to what the outcome of a court case should be. And since this is a democracy, it's in my interests to spread my opinions, in the hope that someone else will see how reasonable they are, and keep them in mind next election day.
--Kevin
Seems like people are getting excited for the wrong reasons (most of the posts at this point seem to be "Horay! DeCSS is legal now!").
Note that I haven't read the full ruling. But from the except given, it seems the judge is saying that computer source code (including cryptographic source code) is protected by free speech (and thus crypto export restrictions in the US are unconstitutional). Other judges have said the same thing, and I say the more the better. For the most part, you can export any kind of crypto you want now anyway, but I'd prefer that there were no restrictions of any sort, which this helps pave the way for.
However, this does very little, if anything, for DeCSS. First off, there are the issues of reverse engineering, trade secrets, etc (these points are still wrong, but they were wrong with the RIAA and MPAA brought them up in the fist place so they're probably not going away now). And anyway AFACT the ruling has nothing to do with these issues. Secondly, there is the little matter of... da-dum... DMCA. I'm pretty sure it makes DeCSS illegal, and unless/until it is shown to be unconstitutional and thrown out, DeCSS will still be an "illegal piracy tool" or something stupid like that, even though source code in general is protected (this is similiar to: photographs are protected by the 1st ammendment, but photos of nude 7 year old girls are illegal).
IANAL and any corrections/clarifications would be appreciated.
Emphasis added.
Besides, the 6th Circuit Court (not the Supreme Court, we still have to see what they will say; it ain't over yet, flyboy) said that code is FREE AS IN SPEECH, NOT Free As In Beer. The DMCA might still be interpreted as making the code property (you can exercise free speech in an interview with the local TeleVision station, but they own the tape of the interview). Don't ask me how that might happen, I thought that DMCA-type laws would be thrown out by the second or third judge.
So now the First Amendment applies. But, the first amendment doesn't give us carte blanche to just say whatever we want, there are certain limitations. (Too many limitations, IMO, but I just want to know what this means in practical terms for DMCA, UCITA, and MPAA & RIAA, et al.) I cannot say untrue things about a public figure if I know them to be untrue, that is libelous (slander?). I can't yell "Fire" in a theater, but I can yell it in my home. There are many common-sense limitations to the First Amendment, and many silly/stupid/~evil limitations too, so we must not take this as a signal to "Copy, Distribute, and Be Merry." It's a good win, but the war isn't over, and we cannot afford to look like outlaws or script kiddies or crackers or any other stereotype. If we look even remotely like a stereotype, those who don't know us will assume that the media and the government are right about us, and we will lose support.
And it's about time that non-tech-heads realized this basic truth: geeks and nerds comunicate in ways different from most of "mainstream society", and many of these methods are hard/impossible for a layman to understand. I'm graduating with my degree in Mechanical Engineering this year, and I speak 2 languages fluently: american English, and Math. Example: business types describe the Gini Coefficient (an economic measurement) as a ratio of areas involving two curves; I think of it as G = 1-(2*Integral[f(x),x,0,1)])/(x*h) and that tells me exactly what I need to know, with no ambiguities. Just because what I 'say' isn't in English (or German, or Russian, or American Sign Language), doesn't mean that it isn't 'speech'. The expression of an idea in Code or Math is very dependant upon the author (especialy for large and/or complicated matters). I've been moved more by Shakespeare than by 'speech' in Math, but it's close; I've seen some beautiful Math. It is much like marveling at a particularly ingenious hack; it is so elegant, so efficient, so novel that the experience is emotional.
Louis Wu
Louis Wu
Thinking is one of hardest types of work.
#include
/*
Fuck the thought police
Fuck Bill clinton
Fuck the DMCA
Fuck moderators
*/
main()
{
printf("Have a nice day\n");
return0;
}
This is not specific to you, Signal 11, since I don't know you, and because I'm guilty of what you're doing, but...
... and then proceeds to give legal advice or analysis? As far as I know, the real spirit of 'IANAL' is that since the person isn't a professional, their words should be taken with a grain of salt, and might even be total crap.
Why is it, that practically everybody on slashdot (I've done it too) always puts 'IANAL' in their posts,
So we get a situation where the reader has been fully warned that the post may be full of crap, yet still we read it? And the output of unsolicited legal advice on slashdot is not only used and condoned, but promoted through moderation?
What I'm trying to get at is that many of the programmers on slashdot (if there are any left) are generally the type that really hate listening to a newbie spout off about technology and computing when the person has no idea of what they are talking about. (Case in point - I was outside the computer lab at my school the other day, and I heard somebody talking about XML capable talkback widgets - if that's not total bullshit I don't know what is). So where's the difference between the clueless newbie dropping buzzwords about a topic he doesn't understand and one of the slashdot elite dropping legalese and telling people how the MS appeal is *really* going to go, or what's *really* going to happen with DeCSS?
Somebody, please, either put the final crushing blow to my silly thought that slashdot isn't just full of arrogant posturing fools, or tell me what it is about unsolicited and totally uninformed legal advice that gives everybody here such a stiffy.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
What this means is that while code is speech.. the compiled product is still a tool. If I quote you on something, that's fair use. How many people would like to explain that I just "quoted" half the windows source for, uhh, demonstrative purposes?
Since the compiled product is a TOOL and not a vehicle for free speech, the judge can still keep DeCSS illegal. HOWEVER, I'd be willing to bet that distribution of the SOURCE is now legal.. but compiling it and using it is NOT.
However, IANAL, I just play one on slashdot. ;)
Some of can write and have written programs directly in machine code, by toggling switches, or punching in hex, etc..
The end result is that the "source code" is no different that the executable machine code. Why shouldn't that also be protected speech?
I have to write in a high-level language to have protected speech?
Actually it has quite a bit to do with DeCSS.
One of the reasons that the MPAA received the preliminary injunction against 2600 was that the judge didn't consider source code to be expression.
Since the final word now is that source code is a constitutionally protected form of expression, it's going to be easier for the DeCSS guys to fight the DMCA; the DMCA says that anything that circumvents copy control is illegal - but now the DeCSS guys can argue that this directly infringes on their First Amendment rights (because it makes their expression illegal.)
Just because source code counts as free speech does not mean that any source code you publish is protected.
This is true, but you miss the point that any source code you have rights to is protected.
DeCSS was released under an open license, which grants anybody the right to copy and distribute it - so your analogy falls pretty flat; what if you do have the authors permission?
All this decision does is clear up a single point of law. The district court issued a summary judgement stating that there was no need to consider the First Amendment claim, because it felt that the source code was too functional and not sufficiently expressive to warrent First Amendment protection.
The appellate court corrected this misconception and instructed the lower court to consider the case again. The lower court could still consider the First Amendment claim and decide that the government's interrest is overriding, but before this ruling, the lower court didn't feel that it had to consider a First Amendment claim at all.
This ruling is a step in the right direction, but it is far from a (correct IMO) ruling in Junger's favor. It does not make DeCSS legal, it does not shoot down the ridiculous ITAR/BXA restrictions, it does not war obsolete, etc..
This ruling does, perhaps, cast a slightly better light on the position of the good guys in many of these encryption related cases. It is good news, but please, folks, get a grip!
Adrian
PS: IANAL
PPS: I am not a witless idiot, either. 8-)
This case has simply been remanded for further proceedings. While you might like the idea that the court has declared that code can be speech, and that does have far-reaching ramifications, the critical issues have been returned to the lower court, which has been instructed in exactly how to rule for the government under current 1st amendment law:
"We recognize that national security interests can outweigh the interests of protected speech and require the regulation of speech. In the present case, the record does not resolve whether the exercise of presidential power in furtherance of national security interests should overrule the interests in allowing the free exchange of encryption source code."
It is a very high standard - but the national security exception to the 1st amendment is used as an example of limits in every 1stA. case - usually referring to the unlawful publication of troop movements in wartime. The government need not change their argument to shove this puppy way up into the dark, sticky recesses of national security.
I am continually more impressed with the intellegience of the federal judiciary. Out of all the Powers that Be, they seem to be way the most clued-in.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach