ACLU To Appeal CPHack Ruling

www.sorehands.com writes, "CNet News reports that the ACLU is appealing the CPHack ruling. It should be quite interesting. Especially in the light of the ruling in federal court that makes source code free speech. It is possible that the court may rule that the source code can be posted, but not the executable code. It will be very difficult for Mattel to show damage or harm from publication now. Mattel changed the code, so CPHack is obsolete and will not work on the current version."

Comments

Naw

[mindstrm]

To you it's an encrypted list of plaintext.

To Mattel, it's a DATA file that is part of their copyrighted work. You just happen to have a way to convert that back into plaintext.

However.. we could very EASILY.. VERY EASILY argue that the encryption of this list is in no way a copyright protection mechanism. We can copy their software byte for byte.

What took so long?

[dlc]

I'm wondering what took the ACLU so long to get in on the action. It seems like this is their kind of thing.

Cthulhu for President!

Mirrors?

[dlc]

So, are there any CPHack mirrors out there, so I can add it to my deCSS mirror?

Cthulhu for President!

Like DeCSS

[www.sorehands.com]

Mattel's attorney may not submit the entire list to the court (in the public view), unlike other attorneys. They could always try to keep the filings under seal in the court. But their method is are not really secret.

Microsystems Software / Mattel talk about the review process on their website.

It don't say it.

[www.sorehands.com]

It does not even say, that you can't distribute source code.

The injunction only applies to Jenson or Skala.

The injunction also prevents them from working with others to "Break" CyberPatrol or distribute the "source code and binaries known as CP4Break.zip" or cphack.exe". It does not include others not working in "active concert."

Of course, we don't know the private agreement that is between them.

Just based on the injunction, they could make aprogram that decodes and displays the list w/o breaking the product.

Based on the injunction, anyone else may break the product.

But of course, Mattel will probably try to sue anyone trying into oblivion.

And of course, these are my interpretations and you can't have them.

It's the selection stupid.

[www.sorehands.com]

Words are not copyrightible, but the selection and order of assembly.

The individual site on the list may not be copyrightable, but the list as a whole may be. The list is based on a selection criteria. Even if the application of 99% is automated, it may still may be protected.

DMCA

[www.sorehands.com]

I thought that provision of the DMCA took effect in October.