Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Files Another Injunction Against 2600
A number of people have written in with the news that the MPAA [?] has filed another injunction in the DeCSS case. This time around, they've filed for an injunction against 2600 seeking to stop 2600 from linking to the DeCSS Source Code. Interestingly enough for both (and us, who are in a similar situation) a Judge recently ruled that deep linking was legal. Hopefully, this will enable a better defense.
If that's the best they can do, feed 'em to the hamsters.
Precidents are ALWAYS very important, in a case like this. Far more so than actual logic, so by bringing up as many precidents on as many legal points as possible, you should be able to walk it.
Precidents that could be used:
Between these legal decisions, I am -certain- that 2600's legal team could absolutely fry the MPAA's challange, and set a precident wrt the DeCSS code which could shatter the existing lawsuits.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
*sigh*
Ok, let's go over this again, redundant as it may be. (*duck*)
It is legal for any one individual or corporation to link to anything on the internet, whether it is immediately accessible from the originator's website or not, including frames, etc. The judge mentioned that it should be mentioned, however, that the linked-to content was not originating on the website from which the link comes. This means I can embed a frame into my homepage that shows, for instance, a movie clip that's on Apple's website. The place that is being linked to can not protest against this in any legal manner. (But there're technical ways around it)
However, in this case, 2600.com is linking to sites that have software which was deemed illegal, yes, ILLEGAL by a court, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 2600.com has been stopped, by court order, from posting the software on their site, and are circumventing it by linking to it. Whether we like it or not (and I hate it), this is just a sneaky way around a court order (i.e. providing access to material banned by said court), and the judge probably won't like it at all. This has nothing to do with deep linking - said linking referred to a person's right to link to something (perfectly legal) even if the people on whose site it is don't want that to happen.
Unfortunately, people have been sued over linking to illegal material (MP3s mostly) before - Slashdot posted a story of the Swedish Kid who was arrested and sued over linking to MP3s on his site (an arrest initiated by the RIAA, and no, it's not the deCSS guy
Seriously, guys - this is the real test, the one we've been waiting for. Is it illegal to LINK to material that is deemed 'unworthy' under our laws? To use a gun metaphor (which will probably start a flame war)
I guess this'll finally show how free the system really is.
Alex T-B
Following the MPAA reasoning, and the familiar theory of six degrees of seperation, the next injunction will ask that any site on the internet that links to a site that links to a site that links to DeCSS (including any links to search engines) and any web browsers with built-in Search buttons that link such sites, must be shut down until further notice.
It's actually just part of MPAA's master plan of getting all the current users of the Internet to start going to the movies again.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
- "He is transporting individuals electronically to locations in order to facilitate the illegal copying of DVDs. His behavior is analogous to driving someone to a home so that they may burglarize the home."
Not true. This is more closely analogous to telling someone the address of a home to which they then burglarize. URLs are very much like road-side billboards. Pointing someone to a web site containing materials they could use to break the law is no more illegal than selling someone a gun -- unless it can be proven that you are aware of their intent to break the law. It is far easier to suggest (and later prove) the links are a form of protest. AND, 2600 isn't wisking you away to someone else's web site -- you have to click the link.- According to the MPAA, the pirating of DVDs poses a "serious threat" and costs the organization $2.5 billion per year.
I really want to see the supporting logic and finacial analysis in support of such claims. DeCSS is nothing. How much does a DVD-R drive cost? a DVD-R blank? How long does it take to burn a 3.9G DVD-R? Even given the increasing consumer internet access speeds to which a surprisingly few people have access, moving a 4GB movie around is difficult. And there's no economical means to store the digital copy. (Ok, a 4GB DDS-2 [4mm] tape is under 10$) One would assume the professional crook would be a much more serious threat -- they don't care what you put on the disk; they make a near-molecular copy.When digital VCRs become a common thing, then there will be a problem. HDTV will force this issue. (It'd also be nice to be able to direct record from a DSS system. DishPlayer is a nice start.)
- McNelis said without this additional injunction the first one would be "worthless."
I'd have to say first injuction was also worthless, but go right ahead and file away. 2600 has obeyed the first injuction -- they are not hosting, distributing, or publishing the DeCSS source code. They are, however, hosting a page where people can add links to their own content (one pressumes it to be DeCSS, but 2600 hasn't indicated any verification of any kind; I could, for example, add a link to CmdrTaco's resume *grin*) Again, 2600 is only breaking the law if they are distributing DeCSS (this would be in violation of the prior restraining order.) They would be an accessory to a crime if they they had foreknowledge of one's illegal use of DeCSS downloaded by following the link(s) on 2600. But then, so would the site from which the DeCSS program was actually downloaded.- "We are hopeful that consistent with the court's earlier ruling, the activities of the defendant constitute trafficking and the illegal act and the court will stop him from doing it," said Litvack.
That certainly is a liberal definition of "trafficking"... Last time I checked, we still had the right to peaceful protest.It's illegal to manufacture cocaine. It's illegal to sell cocaine. It's illegal to posses cocaine. But it's perfectly legal for me to tell you where you can go (and/or who to see) to buy some cocaine. The police may harass you, but you cannot be arested and jailed for merely knowing where to obtain cocaine.
This is insane! This is analogous to me getting thrown in jail for telling someone where my neighbor keeps his crowbar, because they might go borrow it and use it to commit a crime!
The MPAA has lost it's mind. Is it just a case of too many lawyers trying to manufacturer a need for their services, or are the media execs really that power and money hungry?
Our contemporary thinker and philosopher, Michel Foucault suggested that the theories generated by theorists and supported by power mold an individual and alter his/her behavior accordingly.
So, for example when Sigmund Freud came out with his theories on sexuality, the power started promoting these theories. It promoted, boosted, intensified, magnified and tried to keep our attention to the subject so constant, that we started to believe in these theories.
Such theories are suggestive and they are prescription to actions and views. so for example constant discourse about sexuality on Oprah is the same promotion as constant advertisements of potatoe chips. When people are constantly reminded of food, they become hungry. When people are constantly reminded of sex, they become horny.
In case of DeCSS, power constantly reminds us about this case. In fact by not keeping quite, RIAA promoted, intensified, and constantly reminded us about the case. I believe that they hurt themselves by doing this and should they have kept quite, much fewer people would have concentrated their attention on the subject. By displacing attention, the subject would have stayed (as it was intended) for a much fewer spectators.
NICE GOING, RIAA
May be those people never read Freud and Foucault.
You can't handle the truth.