DeCSS Update

There have been a few interesting legal maneuvers since our last update on the two lawsuits filed by the MPAA against people publishing copies of the DeCSS code. It's too much for a little blurb, so click below to read more.

First, the Openlaw forum has filed an amicus brief in the case. This is a legal "position paper" filed by people who aren't directly involved in the case but have some interest in the outcome. The Openlaw participants developed it in a collaborative manner primarily using a public mailing list. The brief is intended to address the continuing injunction that the judge issued which prohibits publishing or even linking to the DeCSS code for the defendants and anyone acting in concert with them.

A completely separate issue has also come up within the past week. The MPAA has asked the court to seal the depositions given by their witnesses, claiming that they feel threatened due to receiving hostile email sent to their main contact address, hotline@mpaa.org, and probably prompted by a previous slashdot story... Depositions are question and answer sessions conducted under oath before the trial actually begins, so that the opposing lawyers have some idea of what people will testify to when they're actually in court.

The defense has actually offered to redact any home addresses or personal information from the depositions, and the mail that the MPAA received is no more hostile than any good flame, so it's rather doubtful that the MPAA could truly feel threatened. Most likely, they don't want to see quotes from their executives to the effect that DeCSS is not responsible for any illicit copying published far and wide.

John Young writes "Cryptome has submitted a statement to Judge Kaplan in opposition to MPAA's motion for a protective order to bar revelation of deposition materials. A hearing is scheduled for June 6.

"Read the MPAA's motion for the way complaining e-mail has been used to justify its appeal closed depositions... Anyone can submit a statement in opposition to or in support of the MPAA motion for protective order to bar the press and non-parties from revealing deposition materials. It must be submitted in hardcopy (no fax, no e-mail) to Judge Kaplan by end of day June 2, 2000 (4PM EDT is the hard and fast deadline) at the address given in the letter above.

"Cryptome will accept e-mailed statements in opposition or in support to the motion, print them out and submit them to Judge Kaplan on behalf of authors who cannot themselves submit hardcopy. Send to: jy@jya.com, with the subject: Protect Free Speech. "

Comments

More info -- from one of the deposed

[kinesis]

Hi. I'm Andrew Bunner... one of the named defendants in the DVD CCA case.

On June 6th, I'm due to give my deposition. Here's what's happened so far on this topic. We're right now in the "discovery" phase of the trial which means we have to give them stuff and they have to give us stuff.

I've been asked to provide copies of everything I've ever written or read about DeCSS or any other technology used to encrypt images. Huh. I guess they want my copy of PGP.

They're probably going to try to take my computer from me so they can comb through the hard drive at their leisure.

We're going to object to this course of action since my drive is full of nuclear secrets, FBI informants and the witness protection database. Not to mention the fact I do all my work from this box.

On the 6th, I'm heading down to Cupertino to meet with a bunch of the plaintiff's lawyers, a court recorder and a bunch of our lawyers. Then they're going to swear me in and ask me questions all day.

My lawyers tell me that is expressly prohibited for them to apply electrodes to my nipples during the questioning process.

Although I can't be sure, my guess is that their line of questioning is going to be aimed at showing that somehow I knew or should have known that DeCSS was a stolen trade-secret. Their case pretty much hinges on this.

This will be hard for them since they are trying to prove a falsehood.

I'll ask my lawyers if I'll be allowed to talk to the press about the deposition after it's done. If so, I may try a summary to /.

Anyhow... wish me luck!

(*) Note that the MPAA case depends on a much different section of law. The DVD CCA is suing me under California trade secret law. 2600 is being by the MPAA sued under the DMCA.

DeCSS is neither for Linux, nor for piracy

[Robert Link]

The real importance of DeCSS is not that it could be used to make a Linux DVD player. The real importance of DeCSS is to make DVD an open format, which is important to make sure that we retain our right to use material that we have legally purchased however we see fit. That means watching it on Linux if we want. That means watching it irrespective of the DVD consortium's arbitrary region restrictions if we want. It means reselling our DVDs and editing them or making excerpts if we want. It means that when you buy something you own it, and you can use it however you please (provided, of course, you don't distribute copies or perform it publicly).

One of the basic principles of our society is that people have the right to use and dispose of their personal possessions however they see fit. The recent trend toward licensure of goods instead of sales threatens to undermine that principle by stripping the common man of his ability to own any possesions at all; instead he will license them and use them at the suffrance of the companies who retain ownership. As we saw with DIVX, that license can be revoked at any time, and for any reason. For movies on DVD, maybe that isn't such a big deal, but for truly important goods (say, your car, or your home, or the textbooks you need for your education), licensure keeps you under the thumb of the license holder for as long as you need to use "his" goods. DeCSS is about fighting this trend on every front. It's about not starting down the slippery slope that leads from unimportant stuff like movies and entertainment to the things that really are essential to modern life. Petty concerns like piracy, or even Linux, pale by comparison.

Bringing the subject back to DVD specifically, I think the DIVX fiasco has spooked a lot of people. People that thought they had bought a permanent copy of a movie on DVD suddenly found that they could lose that copy (or, more correctly, the right to watch that copy) at the whim of the company that had sold it to them. This has made a lot of people skittish about any scheme that separates them from the content that they have legally bought and paid for. Few people want to be dependent on the good graces of an organization like the MPAA for anything, not even something as trivial as one's movie collection. (Speaking of DIVX, does anyone know if DIVX discs use CSS? If so, then that might be another legitimate use of DeCSS; DIVX-silver owners could recover the movies that they are no longer allowed to watch owing to DIVX being discontinued.)

-rpl

My letter to Judge Kaplan

[Seth Finkelstein]

I did one last night, here it is. Note the stress on Internet participation

Honorable Lewis Kaplan
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1310
New York, New York 10007-1312

Dear Judge Kaplan:

I would like to add my voice in opposition to the plaintiff's Notice Of Motion For Protective Order of May 30, 2000.

I am a signatory to the amicus curiae brief of openlaw participants in Universal v. Reimerdes Any contribution made by myself, or others not present in the courtroom, would be hindered by the lack of a free and open flow of information. This is a case where networked participation through use of the Internet is not a buzzword or cliche, but a reality. The brief above proves that. Choking off information about the proceedings then has the effect of impairing potential further amicus curiae briefs. Have the plaintiffs shown any evidence at all that would justify such drastic consequences? Please deny their motion.

Sincerely,

Seth Finkelstein
Senior Software Engineer
OpenLaw/OpenDVD participant

The OpenLaw Amicus Brief

[Jim Tyre]

It should be noted that the OpenLaw Amicus brief was an outgrowth of posts here on slashdot, and was done primarily by programmers, not lawyers.

It is worth reading for many reasons, not least of which is to show that there are things which slashdot readers can do besides just post their outrage here.

-J, a lawyer who made minor contributions to the brief.

Huh?

[bdumm]

Well I looked, and the two emails below seem
to be the only two real "threats" that I saw.

content: If you even dare try to put forward your litigation
and lawsuits, I will kill you and your lawyers and anyone else
who supports you in your fight against piracy. I will also kill
your attorneys and judges who think piracy is bad.

Also, I hope kill at least one thousand of you!
I have hired several hitmen to kill
Elian when comes back into cuban soil

They repeated this email? Elian.... heh....

REDACTED

Subject: Fwd:fuck you

Screw you. You mother fuckers need to learn what
battles to fight and when to fucking learn the laws
you think are being broken. we're going to kill each
and everyone of you.

________________________________________________ __________
Do You Yahoo?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Boy, Yahoo has some good advertising. This seems
to be a more believable threat than the first one.

My Personal Favorite.

Austin; Kathy-
From: Anthony Teague [ATeague@arcmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 2:29 PM
To: hotline@mpaa.org
Subject: 2600 magazine

You guys fucking are assholes. I hope you all rot in hell. Goddamn corporate
lackey fuck-up capitalist shitheads. ANARCHY!

But what really bothers me is this claim...

8. On May 24, 2000, a country manager for the MPAA in Malaysia was returning home from dinner with a female friend when the two were confronted by a man who brutally slashed the friend's face, inflicting a wound which required 22 stitches to close. Again, while I do not suggest that defendants were responsible for this attack, I believe, based on the circumstances known to me, that the attacker intended to hurt the MPAA representative, rather than her companion, because the MPAA representative had received threats recently as the result of her anti-piracy work, and that this deplorable incident reflects the very real danger faced by MPAA personnel and others who work to fight piracy in an increasingly contentious atmosphere. Similar incidents have occurred in the past.

I guess MPAA personnel don't have too much to
worry about, as their "attackers" don't seem
to bright, attacking the wrong person and all...

Cowards!

[vsync64]

The MPAA has some serious arrogance going on here. In their own brief, they cite a number of emails, most of which are not threatening and simply state the senders' dissatisfaction with the MPAA. Some are obscene, but a number are not. If they don't want feedback, they shouldn't have email. Plain and simple.

And what is this?!?!

8. On May 24, 2000, a country manager for the MPAA in Malaysia was returning home from dinner with a female friend when the two were confronted by a man who brutally slashed the friend's face, inflicting a wound which required 22 stitches to close. Again, while I do not suggest that defendants were responsible for this attack, I believe, based on the circumstances known to me, that the attacker intended to hurt the MPAA representative, rather than her companion, because the MPAA representative had received threats recently as the result of her anti-piracy work, and that this deplorable incident reflects the very real danger faced by MPAA personnel and others who work to fight piracy in an increasingly contentious atmosphere. Similar incidents have occurred in the past.

He is blaming DVD activists for the attacks of a street thug. The sheer gall amazes me.