Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DeCSS Defense Brief

Posted by michael on from the for-the-record dept.

John Young's excellent Cryptome site has posted a new salvo in the DeCSS conflict. The Defendant's Reply Brief to Linking Motion and Cross-Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction is a bit lengthy but contains all sorts of good information in the main document and in the Declarations attached from Harold Abelson, Andrew Appel, Chris DiBona, Bruce Fries, Martin Garbus, John Gilmore, Robin Gross, Lewis Kurlantzick, Eben Moglen, Matt Pavlovich, Bruce Schneier, Barbara Simons, Frank Stevenson, Dave Touretsky, David Wagner, and John Young.

2 of 7 comments (clear)

  1. Hm, linking as part of free speech. by Proteus · · Score: 3
    This is indeed a well-written brief. It constantly refers to excellent precedent to support the notion that a hyperlink -- regardless of the nature of information on the target site -- is as much protected speech as saying that such information exists. There is also the powerful point of how much the plaintiffs are over-reacting to this situation: this isn't national security.

    I found it very persuasive, but I sincerely hope the judge that reviews has a nice dose of Cloo(tm).

    This decision could have far-reaching implications: if linking is not held to be protected speech, any of us who have a website could then be obligated to verify the legality of anything we link to. This bodes ill for publicly-managed sites. Just think of Slashdot: they could be sued over links in our sigs. (Granted, Slashdot would likely win since the commenter is clearly the copyright owner, but it would still hurt to have expensive lawsuits being served constantly)

    I wouldn't let this one sleep -- we need to make an issue of this so that site linking remains free speech.

    --

    --
    We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
  2. A Bit Lengthy? by Jim+Tyre · · Score: 4
    The Defendant's Reply Brief to Linking Motion and Cross-Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction is a bit lengthy

    A bit lengthy?

    Meaning no disrespect to my friend Michael, but the document was written to convince the Court, not slashdot readers. ;-)

    This lawyer's view is that it does a nice job of that, though I hazard no predictions as to how Kaplan will view it.

    Why is this story not on slashdot's top page?