Slashdot Mirror
The Confounded Mr. Valenti
On June 6th, MPAA Chairman Jack Valenti finally recorded a deposition to be used by the United States District Court in the case of the DVD CCA vs. 2600. The deposition is available here from Cryptome, and here on 2600's site. Wired has an article about the deposition here, as well. According to the phrase-counters at Wired, Mr. Valenti said "I don't know" 62 times, "I don't recall" 29 times, and "I'm not aware" 16 times. Interesting that Mr. Valenti makes all sorts of statements, but isn't actually aware of what's going on.
if anyone is interested theres an even more detailed figure in steve albinis rant here about what the artist actually gets at the end
MR. HERNDSTADT: My name is Raymond R. Brown.
if the guys giving the interview can't even figure out who they are, i doubt the subject will say anything all that interesting.
--
Valenti suggests that if a student wants to cite from a movie, that they use the analog version.
Here is the excerpt:
Q. If a student wants to do a term paper, let's say do a video presentation on the holocaust -- do 20 minutes on the holocaust, and wants to take two or three minutes from a DVD from Schindler's List to put into that holocaust presentation and she has to de-encrypt the DVD to do that, is that illegal?
(lawyer interference deleted)
A. The student could do that by getting an analog version of Schindler's List, because that's not encrypted.
Though Valenti and his lawyer clearly did not want him to express any legal conclusions, this clearly shows that he thinks that the DMCA overides fair use protection. He is clearly indicated that fair use applies to analog works but not to digital works. So the wuestion would be, if a work is never released in analog, is therefore never to be given fair use protection?
Since fair use is a constitutional right, upheld by the Supreme Court, and DMCA is merely a statute, I think we Mr. Valenti's legal conclusion that DMCA is unconstitutional, and should therefore be struck down by the Supreme Court!
Another lesser point is that Valenti is wrong when if he is trying to imply because the analog copy isn't encrypted, that the DMCA doesn't apply to it. Though not encrypted, and not digital, analog video tapes are encoded with MacroVision copy protection. Which I think the DMCA would still apply to, since it is likely added digitally to the tape. But IANAL either.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
I'm all hoping the the mpaa or whoever loses badly.. .this whole thing is BS.. but this guy, Velenti, *does* answer honestly and truthfully.. it seems.
.and he *is* correct.. it is clear in the DMCA that circumventing an effective copy control mechanism (which this can be construed to be) is illegal.
For a great many of his 'i don't know' he is simply being asked for the record whether or not he is aware of certain things.
As for whenever he is asked about something illegal... he re-states over and over again, that 'circumventing the encryption on a DVD is illegal according to DMCA, plain and clearly'.
The thing on trial here is really the DMCA, not the defendant.
As for 'fair use' and all that crap.. I had a thought.
First, 'fair use' does not mean 'absolute right to undertand and use any technical means necessary to make copies in whatever form you want', it simply means that you can't be prosecuted for what is construed as 'fair use' of a copyrighted work.
Copying a DVD digitally, for your own personal use, may be fair use, and having that copy is probably not illegal.
However, according to DMCA, circumventing the encryption *IS* illegal, and posessing the tool to do so is also illegal, even if the end product is not.
You know, what joe average is buying when he gets a dvd is a 'movie'. If you say in a court 'they can always make analog snippets of it in a classroom or whatever'.. they are right. If the 'product' that falls under copyright, as the people percieve it, is simply 'the movie'.
To us geeks, though.. the 'product' under copyright is a collection of bits, that when decrypted a certain way and run through the appropriate codec produces a movie. See the difference?
They are buying a movie.. we are buying bits.
So.. to us, fair use should extend to manipulating bits on the dvd.. I own the physical dvd and all it's bits outright, and I can do *whatever* I want with those bits in the privacy of my own home.
During his testimony Valenti played a brief clip from the MGM film "Stigmata." "This film was illegally downloaded this week and the film is still in many theaters in the U.S. and has not yet opened anywhere else in the world. But it is available on the Internet for free."
He 'illegally downloaded' the film? Arrest that man!!!
Present German law for example allows citations, under certain circumstances it is even possiible to use the whole work in question as citation.
If the film industry wants to have such a level of control over DVD that not even a citation is possible they clearly try too much.
After the Valenti deposition, the MPAA lawyers went before Judge Kaplan to attempt to have the entire deposition sealed from the press. During this hearing, documented here at the cryptome site, Judge Kaplan had some very interesting things to say ...
...
First:
2 THE COURT: That is persuasive only to a point. We
3 are now six weeks away from a trial. If they can't remotely,
4 as you suggest, prove the allegations they have made in this
5 case, embarrassment on the Internet is going to be the least
6 of their problems, because I am going to call this case, one
7 way or another. Obviously, listening to the two of you,
8 somebody is full of baloney. I won't have any hesitation
9 about saying who it is when I see the evidence. So, while I
10 understand this embarrassment notion, I understand both sides
11 are conducting as much of a public relations campaign as a
12 lawsuit, maybe more, but the game all stops next month.
Whew!
And later
24 MS. ABRUTYN: Even if that is the case, there are two
25 possible remedies. The first one is that your Honor could
1 rule the depositions shouldn't go forward in the first place,
2 in which case there would be nothing to have access to, if
3 Mr. Garbus is off on a fishing expedition.
4 THE COURT: I am not accusing him alone.
5 MS. ABRUTYN: Or if both sides are --
6 THE COURT: This is a bass tournament.
I like his sense of humor!
This is important reading. Why? Because you are suddenly and brutally shown that the MPAA is totally clueless about technology. Their only concern lies with maintaining a virtual monopoly created by constraining how you can view the media contained in DVDs.
The fact that their entire case lies behind a point of law surrounding whether or not it is "legal" to decrypt something that has been encrypted blantantly shows that their interest lies with articifcial control of a market.
His deposition makes it clear beyond any possible miss-interpretation that the purpose of the encryption is not to prevent copyright infrigment but to control what can be used to view a DVD.
Interestingly, if it is illegal to decrypt encrypted material, then perhaps we should all be suing the government for the actvities of the NSA and other government agencies. Or is that the rules of the game are different if you're the government?
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
The fix is for the movie execs to develop technology which will protect their copywritten material.
... that's the "hacker incubation" time. It's when you spend all day and all night studying machine language specifications, attempting to comment disassembly listings, and working on solving the challenging puzzle that copy protection is.
No, this is not a fix. It can never be a fix. Copy protection does not work as a long term strategy. It can not work.
The reason is extremely basic and fundamental. The problem is that a protection-stripped product (the "warez" version) is intrinsically more valuable then the original, copy protected product, because you can do more with it. Specifically, you can do the very things that the copy protection tries to keep you from doing, whether it is backing it up, as in the Apple II days, or, as in the case of DVD, extracting and manipulating the raw program content.
As any copy protected technology becomes more and more interesting; as more and more material becomes available in that format, the interest in breaking that copy protection will also rise.
The average age of a successful copy-protection cracker appears to be about 16-18 years old. That's the age when you have enough free time, and enough focus to really dig deep into the details of a copy protection system
Cracking copy protection usually does not require sophisticated tools. It does not require advanced training. Mostly, it requires extreme dedication, hard work, and a young mind flexible enough to figure it out. Criminalizing the art of defeating copy protection is nothing more then criminalizing our next generation of computer scientists. We can do it, but wow, what a stupid thing to do.
In other words, you can't regulate 16 year olds. You can't even get them to clean their rooms.
Unfortunately, we have a Congress that was elected on the issues of gun control, the death sentence, and partial birth abortion, so it's not surprising that they understand so little about the Constitution that they would tamper with Copyright the way they have -- by banning reverse engineering, in the apparent hopes that this will "dumb down" the population, at the "small" cost of criminalizing our brightest young people for satisfying their curiosity about their most valued possessions -- their music and video collections.
The real "solution" to copyright infringement is to remove the incentives to infringe. Pay close attention to your pricing, make sure that you are offering a total package that contains more value then just a copy on recordable media. If you're a music publisher, that means including nice artwork, with printed lyrics and liner notes. If you're selling a computer program, that means including good printed documentation. If you're selling a DVD, that means having interesting "extras" on the DVD that people will want to buy, as opposed to just selling the movie itself, which can be decrypted with DeCSS and copied as an MPEG stream.
In short, provide value for your customers money. The same thing that producers have had to do since the beginning of time -- or until our Congress created special laws to relieve the entertainment industry of this "burden".
Copy protection is an illusion. Every copy protection for every interesting product will be broken, given time. If you've based your business model on the illusion that copy protection will allow you to control your customers, then your business will fail. The entertainment industry does not need to base their business model on copy protection, but if they continue to do so, then they will fail as a business.
They will not win. The 16 year olds will win.
Mark my words.
People do not bother trying to circumnavigate restrictions so long as they do not feel restricted. Right now, there's nothing you can do with a DVD except to play it. DVD players have no digital outputs, and the contents of the disc are encrypted.
... yet. DeCSS represents a very basic tool -- the interface between editing software and commercial content. Whether artists have legal access to that interface is an issue that will change the face of audiovisual art forever, for better or worse.
Most people could care less, because they only see the DVD in terms of a glorified "digital" videocassette, with a few cute add-ons.
We have no idea what people might want to do with the contents of a DVD, because people don't have access to the raw contents of a DVD. There is the potential for entire new art forms -- just like sampling technology ushered in an entire new form of music -- one that was unimagined before digital technology -- or only practiced by a few individuals with extraordinary resources, such as the Beatles with Revolution 9.
Hypothetically, given complete access to the raw digital data on her DVD collection, and video editing software, a person could sample bits and pieces of different movies, combine them with a soundtrack made by sampling different movies and songs, and create expressive new works of art. Even if those works could not be commercially exploited due to copyright restrictions, that wouldn't matter. A person who developed a talent that way could then go on to create similar works using their own sources, or licensed sources as raw material, thus creating works that could be commercially exploited, and at the same time creating an entire new market for stock footage.
Until it is established that one has a fair use right to get at the raw contents of copyrighted works that you have purchased, most people will not even consider the potential possibilities of such access.
In short, there is an entire world of possibilities for new forms of artistic expression that are sitting dormant, because the MPAA is struggling to ensure, through technological and legal means, that the only experience people can bring to their products are to sit on the couch, eat popcorn, and turn off their brain for two hours.
Back to the sampling analogy, sampling doesn't affect most people only in the sense that most people aren't DJs. However, given the popularity of house, hiphop, and other forms consisting largely of samples, a large percentage of the population are affected by and benefit from the talents of the small percentage of the population who exploit sampling technology to create new works, and a similar potential exists for audiovisual works as well. The technology is just emerging that will make this possible, DeCSS is a big part of it, and the MPAA is determined to stop it.
So I would agree that most people aren't affected by this
That's the real stakes behind DeCSS.
It seems that people breaking DVD encryption is the least of their worries.
That said, I think it's time I changed my
Um, guys, if I filed a lawsuit, I would expect to need to take part in depositions. Course, I'm just one of them evil reverse-engineering-supporting hackers...
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
I would guess that mothers of large families would be especially good at this, having lots of experience at monitoring conversations (and other incidental noises) without continually parsing them. Meanwhile, the rest of their mind is thinking about what to have for dinner that evening, or off in Fiji somewhere with a Fabio clone and a ripped bodice. They probably remember the entire conversation as something like this:
Q: Arf arf, arfarfarf, woof?
A: Meow?
Counsel: Grrrrrrrrr!
Q: Woof WOOF!
A: Meowrrreow.
Q: Oink Oink Oink?
Counsel: Heeeee-awww! Heee-awwwwww!
A: Could you read back the question please?
I can see the fnords!
Youc an see with when you see people getting so protective of thier money, to the point of trying to strangle new technology to keep it within thier grasp.
You can see it when these people go infront of the worlds press and are able to make all sorts of statements full of facts and figures off thier head and have an answer to any and all questions.
Put them on the stand where people have a chance to ask questions and delve for the truth behind the facts and figures, and they suddenly develop a bad memory and can't quite figure out where they heard some facts and figures.
Courtney Love's rant in salon.com shows what the artists at the recieving end are really getting from all the protection: next to nothing.
The sooner that things like the RIAA die off the sooner you will find local bands getting success because they are actually good musicians, and not getting success because they have a manager that knows someone.
The same goes for DVD technology. Robert Rodrigeuz was the exception to the rule when a small filmmaker could actually make a film for nothing and get it taken by a studio. Locking up the DVD distribution and technology will allow executives to have control over who gets to pay them money to buy films.
Yes. They are trying to gloss over the fact that programs like DeCSS allow one to watch movies without regard to region coding. This is a non-infringing use of DeCSS -- it allows you to play back DVDs that you have legally purchased in other countries, and, under the doctrine of first sale, you have the legal right to use.
Their "party line", after all, is that the only use of DeCSS is to facilitate illegal copying, and that DeCSS has no non-infringing uses. That's what the entire lawsuit is riding on.
Schumann glossed over the exact same point by claiming that DeCSS had nothing to do with region coding, which was disingenuous to say the least.
I don't understand why Garbus didn't push him on the point. It's a very important point.
First of all, I believe the phrase counts in that Wired came up with to be wildy inaccurate. At least it sure felt like these phrases were uttered more often than that.
Plus, I had this image of the plaintiff lawyer sitting at the table using a series of recorded objections (sort like Brian Wilson playing back comments on his tape recorders). Jeez! Every single question was objected to with something inane like: ``Ambiguous'', ``Lacks foundation'', ``Assumes facts not in evidence'', or, when in doubt, combine them altogether to say ``It's ambiguous. It's an incomplete hypothetical. Assumes facts not in evidence, and it calls for a legal conclusion''. It's truly sad that this is what passes as the quest for the truth in the American legal system nowadays.
From reading the deposition, it seems (unbelievably) that Jack Valenti had absolutely no idea that there's a legal proceeding underway until he was told so by his laywer. Therefore, he couldn't answer any questions since that would have violated client-lawyer confidentiality. How convenient!
Let's hope this deposition can be used to blow Mr. Valenti's credibility on this subject right out of the water because it sure seemed that he didn't know anything about the subject (even though he testifies as though he's up to speed on this stuff).
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Q You have been on television both with respect to your role as MPAA president and in your previous life?
A Yes.
Q Can you just tell us for a moment whatyour previous life consisted of?
LOL So, reincarnation is is being offered into evidence... Any guesses as to who he was in a former life - remember he was on TV during it =)
Wheeeee
Sure, it would have been nice if Jack would have dug a hole for the MPAA but is anyone really suprised by his lack of knowledge and selective memory? I am sure that the MPAA lawyers went over in excruciating detail exactly what Jack would remember and what he would forget if in fact he did know of any relevant information. Additionally, this guy is not a techie. This guy probably does not know what reverse-engineering and fair use entail. I am sure that he does not know how valuable this is to development, and I am sure he does not know what the ramifications to the open source community this lawsuit can lead to.
AFAIK, all Jack knows is that DeCSS==decryption==availability==piracy. It is a whole lot harder trying to track down and prosecute pirates, so why not try to illegalize any tools that can be used to commit the crime!? To them this is damage control, to us it is an invasion on our rights to make decisions. If I can decrypt a DVD to watch it on my Linux box then fine, but I can also chose to convert the unencrypted data to VCD format and upload it onto an FTP server. That is like using a hangar to open the door on my car when I lock the keys in it as opposed to using a hangar to open the door on someone else's car to steal it. I am suprised that automotive insurance companys do not lobby to make hangars illegal all together!
I just pray that the defense proves to the judge that there are legit purposes to DeCSS and that it is not practicle to use it for illegal purposes. The DMCA needs to be re-evaluated!
It's instructive to see precisely how Mr Valenti views the whole DVD-on-linux situation. For example:
BY MR. GARBUS: Q I'm not taking now about reverse -- Mr. Valenti. I'm not now talking about the actual reverse engineering. Let's assume man A does the reverse engineering. Man B posts it on the internet. Man C then takes that information, and he's a Linux, user, and he uses that information to play a DVD on a Linux operating system and the Linux operating system has no license from the DVD CCA. Is it your view that that's against the law?
A[Mr Valenti] Yes.
His views on fair use are also interesting and far more restrictive than I believe the law to be. Another excerpt:
Q Did you also testify before congress that the Fair Use Exception was not cut out by the DMCA?
A Yes. The concept of Fair Use is intact in the DMCA.
and a little later ...
BY MR. GARBUS: Q What is the concept of Fair Use, as you understand it?
A It means that libraries or schoolteachers can play movies in their classrooms for educational purposes.
I also threw my coffee over the keyboard at this one. Just for educational institutions?
Draw your own conclusions.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Whine, whine... I have to wonder what the stenographers think about this. They have to put up with it every single day.
Of course, it's fairly obvious that this is an issue he's "here to answer on". His competence in addressing the DMCA is directly relevant to this case, and I find it a little surprising that his lawyers are trying to stop it so blatantly. Myself, I would have just tried to dodge the question with a Clinton-like many-words-but-no-content answer.
We all know, that the reason they're so worried is that if he screws up even the tiniest aspect of the DMCA, Garbus will be all over him for it. As well he should.
This reminds me of those Grisham novels where the lawyer takes on a corporation, finds out they are in way over their head, and just rips them to shreds within minutes. Quite enjoyable to watch... =)
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Good point there - he's lobbied for these laws, yet accoring to his lawyer, Valenti isn't even competent enough to answer questions about the DMCA!
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Typical, in any suffiecently clever, fortunate group there will be someone proclaiming that any one with a gripe should shut up since it's their own fault for being stupid and incompatent.
... even if we normalize for "sales per person".
u sicsite.com/ims/corner/albini.html+Steve+A lbini+Baffler&hl=en
The logic is brilliant: "I'm smart and compatent, I don't have problem X, therefore if you have problem X you must be stupid and incompatent, and we all know that the stupid and incompatent deserve whatever they get - QED"
The fact of the matter is: Regardless of buisiness accumen, you are far more likely to make a decent living as an average programmer than you are as an average musician
Large companies take in on the order of 1-2 hundred thousand per person. And the average starting salary for a programmer is around 40-50 grand a year. So even if you don't negotiate a great deal or even if you aren't a kung foo master, you can still afford to live (well the valley is a mess but that's a different rant).
If a band only takes in a few hundred grand in record sales, they are fucked. They are in serious debt and with a typical contract, their career as a band is over - unless the record company has pity on them.
I would bet that there are fewer major label artists who are independently wealthy than there are programmers doing 80 hour weeks for 20K.
As far as major labels go, almost every mucisian is in a lousy barganing position, even if they are brilliant, even if they have a proven track record, even if they sell millions. So maybe Madonna is happy with her label, since she is a great buisiness woman and has made her label a fortune, they probably don't fuck with her. But there are literally a handful of people in that position. It is not uncommon for multi-plaitmun artists to be totally screwed and unable to do anything about it, even with really good lawers.
You really ought to read the steve albini rants, he gets into much more detail:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.indiem
Of course, musicians still have choices. Everyone should do thier reseach before entering into a contract. And any good reserch of major labels would reveal that they are pure evil. And if you are good, you can make a decent middle class living playing gigs and releasing on a fair indie label. Unless you would have 3+ multi-platnum albums w/ a major, indies are your best choice. (although i don't know of many programmers who wind up hundreds of thoudands in debt, just cuz they didn't do thier reseach before getting thier first job)
One more thing, it probably sucks to be super famous without being rich. If you are super famous, it's hard to lead a normal life, people harrass you, people want to touch you, pick a fight with you, block your way to talk with you. You need to spend money on security, you can't just go out and run errands without major hassles. People start expecting stuff from you, assuming that you're rich. If you go outside in cheap clothes or a cheap car or a cheap haircut you get dogged on the cover of the enquierer. Your kids get hassled at public schools. Your privacy is constantly assaulted. You end up spending money just to protect yourself from you fame. It's hard to do that with a middle class income. Granted, you get laied, get gift clothing from designers and don't have to wait for a table in restaraunts, whoo-hoo!
You don't have to shed tears for starving famous people, but realize that they need to go public with their stories so that others can make informed choices about whether to sign on the dotted line.
- bridgette
It's only illegal due to the DMCA; under general copyright law and the precedents of past court cases, citing part of a copyrighted work falls under the protection of fair use. Perhaps Mr. Garbus is bringing this up to set up a later appeal and constitutional challenge to the DMCA.
In response to some previous comments in another article about Mr. Garbus: perhaps he isn't the most technologically savvy lawyer in the world, but he seems to be a deep thinker and I'm sure he knows his way around the courtroom very well. The 2600 defendants and the technical community at large are very lucky to have his help in this case. And when you think about it, this isn't really a technical issue. The boundaries of copyright and intellectual property have been in the courts for hundreds of years; this is just the latest instalment of those court battles. If I were Mr. Goldstein, I would be much happier to have a lawyer well-versed in IP law and first amendment issues, than a lawyer who is intimately familiar with all of the technical details. After all, you can probably pick up the technical details faster than you can learn hundreds of years of legal precedents.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I also note for the record that Mr. Valenti is here at considerable personal inconvenience. He is not feeling well this morning and has some kind of bug.
Ah! is this a beta version of Mr. Valenti? Bring on Valenti 2.0! Less crashes! More Lawsuits! Improved Grandstanding!
air and light and time and space
I guess Valenti hasn't seen "The Sixth Sense" DVD, or any Disney DVD's - otherwise he wouldn't say the following - I think that things like this (not even being able to control the playback) might be considered a limit of fair use in some way and really hurt them:
-----------
Q If you have, let's say, advertisements in the beginning, can you fast forward past those advertisements so that you can go straight to the movie?
A I'm not aware of DVDs that have advertisements. What do was mean advertisement?
Q Advertisements for other movies.
A Yeah, you can fast forward through that.
------------
It's one of the "features" of DVD players that makes me the most angry, and really makes me consider building a DVD player box based on something like DeCSS to be able to have full control over navigation.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Or, as most of us would put it, clueless or a liar?
In Mr. Valenti's L.A. Times opinion piece he quoted some of the web sites offering DeCSS as saying the software would allow piracy. Now, most of us have been to a few DeCSS sites and we know that most of them were very clear in saying that DeCSS did not offer functionality that would enable piracy.
There are two possible explanations for this: Either Mr. Valenti was deliberately trying to deceive the Times readers or someone deliberately deceived him.
It would be very interesting to hear some questioning of this flack on the subject of what did he know and when did he know it. While a deposition would be a great place for that (perjury and oaths and all of that), any reporter or call-in show which allows open questioning of the guy should be just as useful. After all, he is a PR guy who has a message he needs to get out, even if it is a deceptive message.
Somebody had to search through a whole bunch of DeCSS sites to find any that promoted themselves the way Mr. Valenti claimed. I doubt it was Jack himself. What if a reporter interviewing him presented him with a computer with an Internet connection and asked him to show the sites?
I doubt he could find one (Can you say, "I don't know," Mr. Valenti?), so the reporter would have to have a backup plan. A simple possibility: Do a search on Google for "DeCSS piracy." I'm betting most of the hits would say, "Here is DeCSS. The MPAA says it can be used for piracy, but it can't. All it's good for is playing DVDs which you legally own and a have a legal right to play."
It would be interesting to see his response. Another "I didn't know" would suggest he has himself been deceived. And the obvious follow-up question would be who told him the information he put in his article.
Another interesting possibility in all this: We all know how easy it is for any of use to put up a DeCSS mirror. Wouldn't it be just as easy for the Motion Picture Association of America to put up one of their own, claiming to be pirates? If we could catch them in a fraud like that, we might be able to really rock their world.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
Were I a shareholder, I'd have to move that Mr. Gates be fired for incompetance. Same if I was the president of a member of the MPAA. These men are either lying through their teeth (most likely) or complete rubes. If the latter, it's obvious why they should be fired. If the former, it's just a good thing to can (or is that cane?) liars of this sort. Totally offensive to my dignity as a human being.
And what the fuck is with Valenti's attorney? Read the end of the deposition where he states that Valenti should not have been deposed. He's the president of the damned organization that brought the suit! He has the duty to know what his underlings are up to (same as in any company/organization. 'The buck stops here' thing.)
On another front, it appears that 2600's attorney is asking very intelligent to the point questions that show: MPAA has no clue. None whatsoever. Unfortunately, the MPAA's attorney is sticking very much to the legal nitpicking that is part and parcel of a modern court case in America. And THAT is what wins the case. Not facts. Not intelligence. But who is a better nitpicker.
Hopefully this will be different, but let's face it: most judges are much closer to collecting Social Security than I am (and the Supremes have largely been eligible for several years). Not to disparage the elderly, but by and large, those who fought Germans, Japanese, and Italians in the 40's do not grasp computers, DVD's, encryption (barring the occasional Waterhouse;) and basically anything more advanced that a Selectric Typewriter.
I'll point to what my father says about malpractice and 'a jury of his peers': he doesn't mind being tried by a jury of his peers. Unfortunately, his peers are quite capable of getting out of jury duty, leaving the Jerry Springer/Rosie Odonnell fans to decide his fate.
Much the same case as the DeCSS cases. While the judges (are there any jury trials yet?) may not be watching Rosie Odonnell, they sure ain't submitting any kernel patches.
Fuck it. The code is out. It's not going away. This seems more a free speech issue than DMCA anyway. But I guess DMCA is yet another chink in the armor of the first amendment.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
If copyright were done away with, I could take the Slackware distribution, make a bunch of source code changes, compile those changes and sell the resulting binaries while refusing to give anyone my source code changes.
Is that what you mean by "Unnecessary"?
I suspect that this "GPL unnecessary with no copyright" meme arose because some people have decided that because some other people misuse copyrights, that all copyrights must therefore be bad. This is black-and-white thinking, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both copyright, the GPL and the purpose of the GPL.
If there were no copyright, then all software would be treated pretty much like the BSD license. Anyone could do anything with whatever they could get their mits on. There's a reason that many chose the GPL instead. Because it requires that published changes include source code changes, it encourages people to provide source.
Without copyright law, this falls apart. Rather than being required to publish the source, people are encouraged to keep it secret. Because there is no copyright law to allow the original owner to put requirements on source code use, they cannot prevent people from burying the code changes in a vault to get a leg up on the competition.
Again, if there were no copyright, I could take the Linux kernal, add some stuff like "SuperDuperBus" support, and sell the resulting package without source. I could also bury little changes to make it incompatible with certain other competitor's version, but of course you wouldn't know that, because the source would only reside, in heavily encrypted form, on my hard drive. Soon, since everyone wants "SuperDuperBus" support to use the latest hardware, I've got my sourceless software out everywhere. And with those subtle incompatibilities (unexamined, remember, no one else has that source) I've gained effective control over the OS. And as long as I can keep throwing in useful features, I'll likely retain it.
Sure, I couldn't easily do it, but a big corp. could. Do you think "Corel Linux" would have come with source without being forced to by copyright law? You're niave if you do...
This is what the GPL prevents. If copyright law goes away, the GPL ceases to have meaning, and the problem it was designed to prevent are no longer prevented.
Now please go learn a little about the GPL, it's purpose, and copyright law before continuing to spread what is IMHO an extremely dangerous meme.
The cake is a pie