Slashdot Mirror
Judge Conflicted Interest in MPAA/2600 DeCSS Case?
vm writes "It turns out that Judge Lewis Kaplan used to advise Time Warner on DVD issues in the past. He also has past issues with one of the attorneys on 2600 Magazine's legal team; Martin Garbus. The New York Linux Users Group is holding a protest outside the federal court house this morning in support of Goldstein and crew. For more details, see this EFF DVD update or the NYLUG website."
I think that it is great that so many people have something they want to say, but i have a problem finding real _data_ on the case, despide everyone (others, us) 's interest and cover of the case. Where can a guy go to get some information unbiased by both sides. They align the whole thing with stealing, and /. and so align it all with freedom of speech, basic rights... ect. Is there anyone out there who simply is presenting who said what and did what, without the loaded language and connotations?
What? - Einstein
This can do nothing but delay the process. Hopefully not for long this issue must be laid to bed once and for all
But on the other hand, in this case DeCSS is clearly breaking the law (DMCA) and they are guilty. The only hope is that this goes to a court that can look at the constitutional legality of the DMCA (the Supreme Court?) and actually rule the DMCA illegal. Which we all pray that will happen, but it will take a lot of money on 2600's part to do it. And there is no telling if it will be declared unconsitutional for that matter.
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
and we had a ton of support...
despite Slashdot's very late posting...
Anyway, pictures are here for all to enjoy...
Pictures of:
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
Kaplan was HIMSELF the hearer of the motion...
And he denied it (of course).
That is to say, he denied a motion to
dismiss himself from the trial...
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
It appear that he has already done so..
This was IMO a move by Garbus to get
that motion (and its denial by the Judge)
on record... When the record is reviewed
on appeal, the easter egg opens and we win!
hooray!
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
You don't have access to the Copyright work ... the movie. You have plenty of access to the disc -- its not Copyrighted.
So you're telling me I can make bit for bit copies of the DVD and the MPAA won't come after my ass with a great pointy stick? Tell that to the latest ring of pirates rounded up in Hong Kong.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
The mere appearance of a (credible) conflict of interest is usually enough for a judge to recluse himself. The real issue isn't that the judge can't put the conflict behind him - it's the fear that the public will lose confidence in the impartiality of the courts.
That's why the fact that the judge's firm once worked on a DVD case doesn't bother me too much, but the personal animosity displayed towards the defendant's lawyers *does*. It won't take many arbitrary decisions that harm the defendants (e.g., regarding scheduling, admissibility of evidence, etc.) for a reasonable member of the community to decide that the most important thing to bring to this judge's court is not the facts, nor is it the law. Bring his golfing buddies - the ones who let him win - if you want to win.
*That* perception will kill the public's faith in the courts, and the extreme violence in drug trafficking shows what happens when people are denied access to fair courts. (To revisit an earlier discussion, it's one of the reasons I support decriminalization of the low-level trafficking to adults. I would rather see small drug deals gone bad end up in small claims court than gun battles with collateral injuries and deaths!)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
> After all this case has been destined to fail from the very beginning thanks /. and similar sites has any clue that this is anything other than a
> to the vast and unfied forces lined up against it. Whilst we all know
> that DeCSS is a perfectly legal piece of software designed to
> facilitate playback under Linux, I think that very few people outside
> of
> tool for the rampant piracy of DVDs.
Well, that's somewhat true..
A lot of the people I handed flyers to
outside the courthouse today thought
that DeCSS was actually Napster and it was very
difficult to re-educate some of them.
I'd explain a bit about DeCSS and the case
and about fair use rights, etc... and then they'd be like, "um, so
then you get on the internet and you can play the movies there?"
and show that I just wasted 10 minutes on them.
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
> braking into the codes
I think the code was standing still at the time, and would not require any braking action to slow it down.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Fuckhead.
loev,
Axel
mhm23x3, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Just because that may be the worst thing possible for DMCA. Region encoding is against WTO rules. You then have a country and a large number of organizations that ADMITTED to breaking the trade rules, and laws that supported it. WTO overrides national laws (yeah, I don't agree with the WTO, but might as well take advantage of it)
meow.
loev,
Axel
mhm23x3, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
They couldn't have done it if it weren't for the DMCA? Wow, they're lame.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
A Defence Attorney, who has been practising for 30 years and has much experience in Federal Court, told me that there is nothing a Federal Judge hates more then being overturned on appeal. Kaplan would not not hand the Defence the perfect way to get his decision overturned by the Court of Appeals.
God, Bush is winning? We're all screwed.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Kaplan had it in for Garbus. Garbus is a moron.
My other first post is car post.
At least people in an ideal communist state are treated as individuals
Unfortunately we don't seem to have any ideal communist states. Please see the World Trade Bank refusal to find China for telling 50k farmers to move to Tibet. Our government might tell people they have to move, but wouldn't tell them where.
In democracy, the majority rules, and the individual is sacrificed.
Well the individual's vote may not be the wasy it goes, but you can always run for office yourself. Let's face it, any lousy actor or governor can do it if they try hard enough.
Unfourtunately, people who consume more are not happier than people who are poor.
No, but they have much better toys.
but I try not to judge people based on whether they are good workers
I'm down with that in a basic Buddhist way, but if you think back to a time when there was only one guy in the village who made shoes, one who grew wheat, etc. you may consider that producing enough of your specialty for the group probably equated pretty well with being "good" in a help-out not-see-people-without-shoes-on kinda way.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Sec. 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1) ''proceeding'' includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3) ''fiduciary'' includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) ''financial interest'' means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a ''financial interest'' in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a ''financial interest'' in securities held by the organization;
(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a ''financial interest'' in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a ''financial interest'' in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.
"Access" and "use" have always been clearly defined and distinct in copyright law. "Access" is acquisition, "use" is obviously use. So, breaking the lock on a video store is illegal, but DeCSS isn't, IMO. IANAL.
He was a partner in the antitrust practice of a firm that had Time Warner for a client with respect to DVD issues and possibly antitrust aspects of DVD issues.
In a large law firm, not every partner knows the details of every client. There is no allegation that Kaplan himself actually worked on the Time Warner case. That kind of information is just not available to the defense unless they happened on a document that he wrote.
The motion to disqulaify is based on an appearance of conflict.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Which he did. It's a bad law, but DeCSS pretty clearly circumvents an access control device, and the law doesn't care for what purpose - all such circumvention is proscribed.
That whole line is dead. Kaput. CSS does not prevent any sort of access.
It's been concluded several times on the list that CSS is a market control measure. That's all.
I know the strength of CSS is not an issue. Under the DMCA efficacy doesn't matter. What matters is that CSS does not in anyway prevent piracy (access control).
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
All right now, how distant was this connection?
We all know of the accusations against the lead defense attorney, and how he "worked for TW" when in reality he defended a small company owned by a larger company which then got bought by a division of TWC. We all scoffed at the accusation, because it was such a weak link that a conflict of interest was almost impossible to visualize.
But now are we on the other side? Was this connection a direct one? Was it a thread of connections looping through 5 different companies where the job happened 15 years ago? If people are to take us seriously, we can't claim one is just loony and the other is a "serious conflict of interest."
Anyway, that's my two cents. Be careful about playing both sides of the fence.
http://kered.org
Aieee! once again we have unfounded anti-communist sentiment! IT'S NOT THE 50's ANYMORE!
I'm not a lawyer, but aren't judges prohibited from presiding in cases that they are not impartial on?
Why do we bitch and moan about the media (people who basically only know the words 'Linux' and 'hack', not the real meanings) reporting that Linux is only for hackers? We can't do so if we have groups named 'New York Linux User's Group' protesting in support of a web site with content related to hacking. What they should have done is say that 'We are a bunch of individuals with our own independant views on this case which all are in support of 2600' (as I hope they are). It is much harder to dismiss a huge number of individuals than a group.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Hovercraft are considered aircraft, and thus are regulated by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). So you need a pilots licence to drive one.
My other first post is car post.
Change the judge. Such conflict shouldn't even exist. The fair judge shouldn't be "interested" to any side.
Kaplan violated Federal law by hearing his own recusal. Specifically he violated 28 USC 144.
The foundation for a claim of bias is provided by 28 USC 455 especially (b)(2) and (a).
The procedure for handling this is provided by 28 USC 144:
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.
Basically, Kaplan cannot just decide the motion on his own bias. He MUST appoint another judge to hear it. He didn't. He is also not allowed to proceed. This trial is a sham!!
I don't think the fact that the subject of this case being DeCSS is all that relevant. It bothers me that this judge, who has had previous contact with either parties (and the contact seems to portray him possibly favoring one party over the other), did not excuse himself from the bench for possible conflicts of interest. I don't care if it was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, or if he joined the dark side and "forgot"; a judge cannot be excused because he "forgets".
The fact that these new findings have come into light should be more than enough reason for this judge to remove himself. Hopefully these new findings will only win more favor towards the Linux DVD effort.
DVDs will always be controversial. I've read that there will soon be a Napster-like system called Apple Something that will allow users to transfer videos and other non-music media. I'll bet HollyWood is mad about this development ;-)
-----------------------------------------
Perversely greped and groped by PowerPenguin
When presented with a signed affadavit from Mr. Kurnit (stating Judge Kaplan had questioned the integrity of Mr. Garbus in telling peers not to associate with him) Kaplan still didn't recuse himself, in effect calling his former colleague a liar. Kaplan is hell-bent on becoming part of history - he wants his name on this case.
Kaplan is clearly going to rule in favor of the Plaintiffs. Even if Kaplan's bias becomes cause for successful appeal, it just means we are back at square one, only poorer.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
yeah? and what about the guy with the shotgun who says "whatcha doin' hoverin' on my land?"
its not just the pavement, its the access way.
but i would like to see hovercraft on roads...whats the hovercraft braking ability like? cornering?
See here. Isn't he cute?
Well DUH..
Sorry if that comes out as offensive - but I thought that DeCSS was proven illegal a long time ago.
This case is about linking to the DeCSS program.. NOT about whether or not said program is illegal. Sheesh.. figure out what your protesting.
Whilst we all know that DeCSS is a perfectly legal piece of software designed to facilitate playback under Linux, I think that very few people outside of /. and similar sites has any clue that this is anything other than a tool for the rampant piracy of DVDs.
ummm....yeah. I tink the most use any of us (my friends and I)have gotten out of DeCSS is to capture some fight scenes from a copy of the matrix on dvd that we rented from blockbuster for a parody/school vid project...b/c at the time we didn't have access to a DVD player or see the need to buy the player, although all my friends already have the cassette version.
Although using DeCSS for educational purposes outside of an encryption class are pretty few and far between, i think very few people (no more than a couple hundred) people actually DeCSS their DVD's to a non-encrypted format just to watch them exclusivly on another platform. I think for the most part, people use it to make copies of the movie at DVD quality onto 1 or 2 CD's for their highschool buddies.
Yahoo! has an interesting article that states quite clearly that you can "combining the decoding software DeCSS with DiVX, a two-hour movie that takes up 4.5 billion bits of storage can be compressed to around 750 million bits". That's means most (1 1/2 hour) high quality movies on DVD could end up fitting on a single CD! Scary thought. Dropping the image quality ever so slightly, you could probably fit Fight Club or The Matrix on a single overwritten cd no problem.
that link to the yahoo article is this: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000717/re/video_ piracy_dc_1.html
moox. for a new generation.
He should have recused himself as soon as he found out what the subject of the trial was.
James
Well, as a poor barefoot boy from fucken South Brooklyn, albeit one with the benefit of an education in Sunny Massafuckenchussets, I hope I might be permitted a fucken reply to your actual point, before the pussywaist fucken dipshit moderators censor you. I'd have to say the following:
Kaplan is under no obligation to recuse himself, and the conflict of interest is clearly non-material. We're not dealing with bought judges here; Kaplan's past as an attorney is irrelevant to his present as a judge. On your extremist interpretation of the rules of procedure, it would be very difficult to find judges to try cases involving large corporations. The "previous issues" with Garbus are, frankly, 2600's fault for having hired a loose cannon of a lawyer.
I appreciate your confusion on this point; many of the pointy-headed fucken idiot Slashbots are equally confused. But a "conflict of interest" is a conflict of interest, not some possible personal prejudice. Judges are assumed to be able to put aside their personal prejudices, and indeed, have been since caveman times. The only grounds for a recusement would be if the judge has an actual interest in the case.
--montoya
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Tux, the penguin has got a new mate. His name is Lewis. Oh, isn't he cute!
Say no to software patents.
For a few seconds waves of fear -- that the government might secretly strive to establish anarchy...
hey now! didn't the congress try to (and temporarily manange to) shut the feds down just a little while ago back?
The legal system consists of 100's of millions of lines of cruft, NOT ONE LINE OF WHICH HAS EVER BEEN TESTED TO SEE IF IT WORKS!!!
Imagine for a second that we wrote 100 million lines of code to control a nuclear reactor, and that nobody ever checked any of it. We just put the code into the computers and took over control of an actual working reactor without testing. I think that everyone who knows anything about programming would agree that would be a horrendously irresponsible thing to do. Yet, nobody seems to have any problem with putting completely unchecked legal code into the much more dangerous human control system of the law; THIS IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE.
How can the legal system be tested? A preliminary step would be to take 1000 innocent defendants around the country, trump up charges against them, run them through the criminal justice system and see how many of them are convicted. That would give us an idea of the false positive error rate of the legal system.
The question I have is this: "How could anyone, who is not monumentally evil, object to testing the legal system; what would you be afraid of - spending a little time and money to see if we know what we are doing?"
The accidental testing of the legal system which was done by DNA work on death row inmates in Illinois is appalling; about half of the death row inmates were shown to be innocent by the testing. Surely capital cases are the ones where we have to be the most sure, and yet the legal system produced a 50% error rate when it was checked. It was so bad that the governor of Illinois was forced to suspend executions in the state! A 50% error rate means that you could do just as well by flipping a coin!
It is high time that we checked to see if the people in the legal system have so much as a clue. I suspect that when we do, we will find the results of testing ghastly. My prediction, based on my own analysis of how the legal system works, is that about 90% of the innocent defendants run through it will be convicted. When dealing with the lives and freedom of people I suspect that no one but a psychopath can find a 90% error rate acceptable.
*Based on my understanding*
that said, You can access it as long as you don't copy their "black box". If you know what goes in and comes out, and make something that fills the funtion of the "black box" without touching their trade secrets, it is perfectly legal.
Another thing, This case might be doomed from the beginning because of the word "Hacker". I read 2600, but I think (sadly) that most people will see not multiple mega-corps bullying legal people, but stopping the hackers who most people think are bad. Alas, we are fighting the very thing (mass media) that turned "hacker" into a bad word, and any regular media, won't be presenting it fairly, just how they are told to.
GO 2600! GO EFF! where is the ACLU?
Little by little, the RIAA and MPAA are revealing their vast network of connections in- and out- side of the entertainment industry. I wonder how long it'll be before people realize that these particular SIGs have amassed quite a bit of power?
El riesgo vive siempre!
Well, this is a lot like politicians getting private industry jobs after they leave office; it isn't direct conflict of interest, but it is clearly conflict nonetheless. The judge shouldn't even wait for the disqualification filing to be ruled on. He should just recuse himself.
Even assuming the judge tries to rule honestly without letting his former status sway him, you would think he probably has some strong preconceived notions.
I just found out that the protest was at 10:30am, 5 hours ago. The court house is a block away. Damn.
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. - (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
Doesn't this mean that none of these laws come into play until next year? Does anyone want to help me out here?
Plus, you need to think before calling something amoral, as there is this nice little thing about the pot and the kettle...
One of the things covered in my philosphy class several years ago was the Communist Manifesto. There were approximately 10 points that make the ideal communistic state.
Communist Russia - satisfied 3 of those 10
US of A - satisfied 7 of those 10
>>Fuckhead.
:)
>Fuckhead.
shpxurnq
(You guys do get around, don't you?
A word of warning, there are baboons hanging out here, and they appear to be into gay sex. They keep propositioning me, no matter how many times I say no.
That said, I think it's time I changed my
You are uninformed.
That said, I think it's time I changed my
On behalf of the author, I give you:
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
I registered my hate for Jon Katz
In view of the nature of this matter, the alleged facts of a prior representation of Time-Warner, if true, make the conflict of interest clear. If they are as reported, Judge K should recuse himself as a matter of course.
But things are rarely what they seem -- reporting of technical legal matters, as with technical technical matters, in my experience, is rarely accurate.
Imagine for a second that we wrote 100 million lines of code to control a nuclear reactor, and that nobody ever checked any of it. We just put the code into the computers and took over control of an actual working reactor without testing.
I was having a discussion with someone a few months ago about how lawmakers could potentially learn a lot from computer science types of theory. Obviously not for everything, but there are parts where it makes sense. Particularly with simplification through effective re-use of effort.
Put simply, the language that law is written in needs variables. Laws should state the reasoning behind them instead of what they are, and what they are should be derived every time they're interpreted.
Without being a lawyer, my impression is that there are a lot of legal documents that get written incredibly specifically, and then sit on a shelf for 100 years until someone (who matters) notices that they need updating.
The best example I can think of is a committee that I'm on. We recently had a revamp of our society constitution, typed up by a chap in his 60's (actually he had his secretary to type it for him). I complained about an update to some wording to now include that notification can be by "email or fax".
Honestly he would have to be kidding. Constitutions of any sort take years to change once they're noticed meaning that 50 years from now we'll be stuck with the words "facsimile" and "email" in our constitution. There's no telling how the definitions of these words could change over time or even if they'll still exist, and the actual point was supposed to be "reliable communication". We could have easily said this and then had more dynamic external specifications stating what reliable communication was.
The irritating thing is that I lost, because he was the lawyer (well.. judge, actually) and I'm a young computer geek meaning I definitively don't know anything about it. I put it down to the legal profession being so pedantically paranoid about being specific because they don't have a clue how to write anything dynamically and keep it reliable.
I know we're still continually learning how to effectively do this ourselves, but to me it seems we're well in front of the legal profession - which isn't showing any signs of progress at all.
===
Good show, the above should be repeated loud and long. Please don't mod these as "Redundant", as it obviously still needs saying. However, I disagree on the interoperability clause, I don't think that applies here, but IANAL.
Darn, no moderator points to spend. But I have never seen such a concise and relevant explanation of the status of deCSS. Just like it's time to stop acception "pirate" as a synonym for "copyright infringer", it's time to stop accepting the presumption of deCSS' violation of DCMA.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I followed the link above, and saw an article describing Garbus's cross-examination of Michael Shamos. Nothing there about the judge refusing the motion.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Well DUH..
Sorry if that comes out as offensive - but I thought that DeCSS was proven illegal a long time ago.
This case is about linking to the DeCSS program.. NOT about whether or not said program is illegal. Sheesh.. figure out what
your protesting.
No, this is not true. Legally, DeCSS has not been proven to be a circumvention device. That's what the trial is supposed to prove. (Of course, the outcome of the trial is not seriously in doubt.) The previous legal battles were primarily over preliminary injunctions.
>>Fuckhead.
>shpxurnq
zrbj
>(You guys do get around, don't you? :)
it is teh good work when you can get it.
>A word of warning, there are baboons hanging out
>here, and they appear to be into gay sex. They
>keep propositioning me, no matter how many times
>I say no.
perhaps if you used teh deodorant they would stop bugging you ok bye.
loev,
Axel
mhm23x3, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
It seems that quite a bit of coverage of the DVD trail is taking hold in
the media. I even saw an article on this in the NY Post, although it
failed to mention the protest.
We got fairly lucky on the Protest because I ran into Jerrold Nadler,
who is the Congressman for the Upper West Side and Boro Park in
Brooklyn. He may be the Representative of many of you in Manhattan. I
used to live in his district, but I no longer do.
We need to now strike a legislative dialog with Nadler. To me, he's one
of the best representatives in the state. He's usually informed, bright
and and unafraid to take a position.
We need to start a legislative movement to protect Fair Use. Clearly,
the provisions in the DMCA of 1998 designed to protect "Fair Use" and
property rights are being run roughshod by the Kaplan Court. Most
importantly, this quote by the MPAA is offensive. It is reported by
CNET at
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2274970.html
"DeCSS is simply the 'lock pick' in the high-tech crime of breaking into
another person's digital property," the MPAA said in a statement
posted on its Web site. "The First Amendment (the legal right to free
speech) provides no protection for such conduct."
We need Congress to pass a law and for Nadler office to put forward a
bill which reinforce "Fair Use" in statutory law, reinforcing it's
Constitutional Status as the rights of the public.
First, we need a law which explicitly makes clear that a normal retail
transaction for a physical copy of any media gives possession
as property of that disk to the purchaser of the disk, just like it
does with a pair of shoes. Therefor, the analogy that someone picks a
lock of something that they actually own can be ended both legally and
philosophically. One is allowed to pick the lock of something they
OWN. Since a DVD is purchased without a negotiated contract, in a
simple cash transaction, the ownership of the lock of the DVD is in the
hands of the disk owner.
Secondly, we need a law which explicitly gives the owners of media which
contain copyrighted material, explicit "Fair Use" protection and
"Reverse Engineering" protection which explicitly takes priority over
any DMCA protections, or any other protections. Despite the attempt of
Congress to include "Fair Use" protection in the DMCA, without which the
law would not have been passed by Congress, the law was written against
itself in section 1201 and Judge Kaplan is ignoring these protections in
the Courtroom. As such, these "Fair Use" protections must be reinforced
and made clear. It must be clear that prior authorization of the
Copyright Holder is unneeded by those attempting reverse engineering or
Fair Use.
Thirdly, we should empower the Copyright Office to remove Copyright
protection from any individual who abuses Copyright to the detriment of
Fair Use through frivolous lawsuits. COpyright should be removed from
any Company which has abused it's limited license to monopoly control of
Copyrighted Material by preventing the educational process or economic
development through reverse engineering. Teeth need to be put into the
Law to prevent abuse of power.
Lastly, we need a change in Copyright which allows for the ending of
Copyright of Software and Content which is no longer available from the
Copyright Holder at a fair market price. This will force Software
Companies to continue to make available important business software and
end the unfair forced upgrade of working products and games, or to hand
over control of them to people who see a reason to do so.
http://www.nyfairuse.org
--
Ruben I Safir
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
They've got "What is the DVD-CCA?" in there twice. I guess it's an important question.
Copyright law and the U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 "Betamax" decision provide for "fair use" of copyrighted material. For example, scholars and critics can quote lines from a book in a review without fear of incurring copyright liability. Or, a soap opera fan can tape an over the air TV show during the day to watch later that night -- under the Betamax decision, an unscrambled broadcast can be copied for this type of "time shift" personal use.
BUT "fair use" is not an open-ended concept. It does not justify any action an individual may take with a copyrighted work, whether they have purchased the copy or not. It is a right to use what is available, not a right of access to works for fair use purposes. For example, the law has always recognized that a show sent by scrambled pay-per-view signal may not be viewed or copied through the use of an unauthorized, illegal descrambler. The owner of the signal has - and has always had -- a legal right to scramble the signal to prevent unauthorized access to the signal for viewing or to make copies of the show.
Most importantly, this concept of fair use does not override specific statutory enactment such as the DMCA, which are intended by Congress to give clear protection to the rights of the creative community to use technological means to protect its product. It is this protection which has enabled the motion picture industry to launch new products in digital format, such as DVDs.
I must say that I had the feeling after reading the Memorandum Opinion that either the judge had to be in the pockets of the film industry, or he would be ignorant. Now, one of my principles as that one should never attribute to maliciousness what can adequately be explained by stupidity, so I thought it was the latter. But, it seems it is not and adequate explanation after all... :-(
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Appeals are likely. Don't look for resolution anytime soon.
And the protest in front of the courthouse is permitted to run until 5pm, so if yer reading this and are still nearby, get out there!
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The real question is why it took as long as it did for this to come out into the open?
It was discovered by the defense in depositions taken last week. It is possible that Kaplan never knew of the specific work that his firm was doing for Time Warner.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
TIMESTAMP: 07/17/3:27PM-EDT
This is an automated posting.
You have been registered for posting seditionist material on the internet.
Please do not leave the country.
You will be contacted shortly by our personnel.
Either that or they just don't get the future we're dreaming of. My bets are on number two (although I have dreams of fluffy bunnies..). Ctimes2
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
Until America puts some kind of control on its corporate sector this kind of flagrant abuse of wealth and power seems likely to continue, at the expense of the little guy.
Oh, and America (the governement) does such a great job of controlling things now. The one of the means of this control is supposed to be the courts. But chances are this case will go the way of the dudes with the bucks.
The other avenue is the legistlative branch. They are all in the corps. pockets too.
Our only hope is to find a good judge, or to elect intelligent representatives, or to have evryone stop buying DVD's. Unfortunately, the chances of any of those things happening are slim to none.
Why do we always cry for someone to save us... to stop the atrocities? They aren't goign to do it for you. You have to do it yourself! Become a judge, become a lawyer, run for office, vote, protest, boycott, do SOMETHING. But do not sit on your whiny ass waiting for the government to fix it for you.
I Understand perfectly that there is a conflict of interest, and that it is serious. I don't dispute that whatsoever. I'm not saying 'leave the judge alone'.
What I'm saying is, it's not necessarily a conspiracy, or even intentional. It just so happens that this judge, in the past, has dealt with the party before under different circumstances. A problem for the bench? yes. intentional conspiracy? I doubt it.
No matter what the results of this case show we have already won. Sure, American developers won't be able to distribute this DVD software, but don't worry about that. In this world are places and countries that are far from the authority of the USA and the MPAA.
We may have won part of the battle - the continued availability of DeCSS.
But by even being sued we're losing another part - the right to exercise our rights without penalty.
Think what a "chilling effect" it is on the exercise of these rights when every programmer who does so finds himself harassed via the legal system.
Yes there are a lot of us. But losing one - or years of his productivity and the bulk of his assets - for every program written that annoys an established interest is not, IMHO, acceptable.
We need to go beyond keeping the software alive out-of-jurisdiction, and beyond even winning this case. We need to get to the point where we, via the very legal system now being used to harass us, can drastically punish the opposing interests for misusing that system in this way.
Bullies won't stop attacking you until attacking you gets them hurt.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Now that's just teasing ! What were the ten points, and which did each of the governments in question satisfy ?
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Most will (probably) also agree that DeCSS violates this law.
:)\n"
His point, as I understand it, is that the majority of the people out there who don't understand the issues and the logical fallacies involved will agree with the FUD spread by the MPAA that DeCSS is in violation of the law.
He then goes on to oppine that once Judge Kaplan rules in favor of the MPAA (by no means a foregone conclusion, but quite likely given his present record), that the higher courts, which tend to be more interested in constitutional law and less in personal prejudice, will return the right verdict (e.g., that DeCSS is NOT in violation on the law).
if ($user =~ m/shaldannon/i) {
print "\n-- $user
}
What is your Slash Rating?
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Unless I misunderstood here, Garbus didn't make his motion (admittedly accompanied by an affidavit) until just before the trial started. It is therefore untimely under the statute, giving Judge Kaplan far more leeway as to how to procedurally dispose of it.
Um, I think YOU didn't read the part about or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time
Garbus did just that (for the Time Warner Connection). He learned of Kaplan's firm's representation of TW with respect to DVD antitrust just 48 hours before.
In fact, Kaplan admits this is timely in his ruling denying the motion to recuse. His arguement was basically that antitrust isn't an issue in the trial -- which is absolutely bogus.
I've been discussing the legalities of this case since it's inception at Openlaw. It's been a major topic from day 1. A search of the Openlaw mailing list archives for "antitrust" retrieves 397 posts.
In fact, I think Garbus was quoted in a magazine as talking about US v. Paramount
Read the NFO file for FreeMpeg4's release of The Matrix.
It's one CD. It's a DVD rip. It's encoded with DiVX. It was most likely ripped with DeCSS. (DeCSS is part of the most popular method to rip DVDs to DiVX.) It is available on the Internet if you know where to find it.
I feel sorry for the DeCSS guys because they don't even know it's happening, and stuff like this will likely come back to bite them on the ass once the MPAA finds out.
I don't. It wouldn't suprise me in the least. This is how our government works. I didn't think that either until I spent 8 years in the Navy. No different there. It's not right or wrong, it's who you know and how connected your opponent is.
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
On July 14 EFF's defense team filed a motion to disqualify Judge Lewis Kaplan from presiding over the DeCSS trial after discovery revealed that he advised Time Warner on DVD matters while in private practice. Judge Kaplan was a partner in the powerhouse NY law firm Paul Weiss when he counseled Time Warner, a plaintiff in the case, on antitrust issues related to DVD technology, an issue to be decided in this case.
2600's defense team has also learned that while in private practice, Judge Kaplan accused its lead litigator, Martin Garbus of professional misconduct and cautioned a co-worker against taking a position in Garbus' law firm. Both incidents create a conflict of interest for the Clinton-appointed federal judge, who has pushed for a speedy trial since the initial court appearance.
Worked directly for one of the major players in an advisory capacity (so he basically worked for the plaintiff) and has what appears to be a rather sizeable grudge against the defendant's lead attorney.
Connection looks pretty direct to me.
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
The defense have been preparing for an appeal from day 1. Part of this means that they need to get their objections and legal arguments into the trial record where they can be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. Kaplan's rulings to date have indicated the eventual necessity of appeal and have provided some of the basis for that appeal.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
At H2K this weekend, Martin Garbus made a half hour appearance before hustling off to settle last minute issues for the case today.
He is very well of Kaplan's bias and said he expects that the case will not be won on this level, but later on in appeal.
Robin Gross from eff.org mentioned they intended to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary (perhaps its time to donate some money to this worthy cause?).
So sit tight folks; don't expect any kind of quick resolution on this one.
--Lomak
: ... conspiracy against our anarchist beliefs! Every level of the govt. is involved ...
Are you sure? Well, then I'm relieved. For a few seconds waves of fear -- that the government might secretly strive to establish anarchy -- drained me of coffeine-induced frenzy.
Seriously, that kind of INjustice is a sure recipe to nurture revolutionaries, isn't it? if that can make you feel better, let me say I've seen similar abuse of judicial power in European countries, at all levels. But then you shouldn't feel better, because that's been standard old-world fare for centuries...
I'm off to Mars.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -- Tennyson
Thanks to Eddan Katz off the EFF for forwarding these to the dvd-discuss list at Openlaw:
Martin Garbus affidavit supporting the motion for recusal/disqualification:
Memorandum of Law supporting the motion for recusal/disqualification:
CSS is an access control device. The wording of the DMCA protects any access control devices (IMHO) even if the access control device is just an arbitrary road block. Thats why the fight must attack the DMCA and not defend DeCSS. IMHO the DeCSS is definately what the DMCA is trying to prevent; however, the DMCA steps on just about every right we have. Eric Raymonds makes an analogy between welding shut the hood of a car and closed source software. I think it applies here, but instead of welding they used an off brand bike lock and they claim if we see inside the hood we'll start making cars just like theirs and selling it.
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
I apologize for my recent "sabbatical" from the slashdot community, but as you would maybe know I had been frozen in ice, thawed out, and been in the attendence of several law classes at Harvard Unviersity. With my bar examination approaching, I decided it would be a good idea to brush up on my law here.
Now I want you all to understand something. I am just a caveman, who was frozen in ice and thawed out by your modern people. Your world frightens and confuses me!
When I check the time on my brand new Rolex, I wonder if little magic pixies inside are turning the hands. When I watch one my 7 HBO channels in my 60 inch big screen television, I think to myself "how did these people get trapped inside this giant box?" And when I drink a bottle of vintage Dom Perignon champagne from a crystal glass, I wonder if the burning sensation from the bubbles is really caused by tiny demons who live inside the champagne and are trying to get inside me and kill me. My primitive ways and customs prevent me from understanding your modern culture.
But there is one thing I am certain of! 2600 pretty much has no hope of winning at this court level. Not only is Judge Lewis Kaplan promote firm and strict adherence to the poorly written DMCA, but he is clearly acting on his past bias as shown by his refusal to recuse himself for conflict of interest or even allow Garbus to speak on such. The only legal advice my caveman mind can offer is for 2600 to ride this loss and take it to a higher court, placing emphasis on Kaplan and his obvious bias and conflict of interest in favor of the MPAA. Thank you for your time.
OOG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN!!! OOG BREAK HEAD WITH OPEN SOURCE CD!!!
Look at it from this point of view...
Generally, most people here agree the DMCA is a bad law. Most will (probably) also agree that DeCSS violates this law.
Kaplan is looking at this from a very narrow interpretation of "Does DeCSS violate this law?" and I think this is a good thing. We'll get through this section of the trial quite quickly. Kaplan will hand down a decision saying basically "Yes, DeCSS violates the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA."
Then we move to the Appellate Court, where Constitutional issues are more properly decided. (Maybe to the Supremes after that, I don't know.)
This is where we want to go. The faster we move to the Appellate level, the better.
Kaplan may not like us, but he is helping us.
Nifty, huh?
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
No matter what the results of this case show we have already won. Sure, American developers won't be able to distribute this DVD software, but don't worry about that. In this world are places and countries that are far from the authority of the USA and the MPAA.
Further development of this product is occuring worldwide right now. The results will be accessable through the world wide web.
This is just like when pgp was deemed to be a dangerous munition in the USA and forbidden for export. But it was still fully accessable to everyone on the internet, wasn't it?
So, just take a deep breath and know in your heart of hearts that we have won already. What this one man who has already decided the guilt of the defendants in this case says about the matter is meaningless.
We, the people of the world, have already spoken on the matter and we find the defendant innocent.
-- Never make a general statement.
All the Govt. is, is a large crowd of old rich men finding ways to get richer. Its no longer of any use. Why do we need all the Senate to decide things for us now that we can voice our own opinions on the internet. The new govt. should be all of the people in the US not the fat greesy rich old men.
Andy's a Gimp 10-4
"Access" and "use" have always been clearly defined and distinct in copyright law. "Access" is acquisition, "use" is obviously use.
I believe that the disctinction between access and use is to be found in the textbook _Nimmer on Copyright_ and not in copyright law.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
I don't see anything wrong with that. They're moderately reliable, and unlike modern cars you can fix them yourself when something goes wrong. Rather enjoyable to drive too
Linux is only Free if your time is worth Nothing
Linux is only free if your time is of no value
Be in Your Senses
I'm not sure it's better, given that it makes it easier to overturn it while leaving the DMCA constitutionality issues unaddressed.
Of course there's enough here to be outraged about, maybe it'd just be greedy to pick on DMCA as the most important principle. After all, I'm recalling the first news here on this topic, where from the very first it was apparent that Kaplan was a "hanging judge".
Should any of this surprise any of us? Local, State, and Federal legislatures pass 75,000 new laws per year. Most of these laws (like DMCA) were proposed, WRITTEN, and lobbied for (with millions of contribution$ thrown in) by special interests. It's been proposed that Microsoft got busted by the Feds largely because they didn't lobby and spread the wealth around Washington. Which is why they get busted up (though they deserve it for their horrendous buisness practices), while other monopoly cartels like the RIAA and MPAA get their way. With 75,000+ NEW laws a year passed, that we ALL are bound to obey on penalty of fines/imprisonment, with ignorance no excuse, it's no wonder lawers can seemingly be hired to destroy any anti-establishment person, business, etc that the "Tortocracy" is offended by. Next time the Federal Government gets "shut down" rejoice! That day we aren't losing another freedom. Ironic that Microsoft's main PR argument is the loss of the "failure to innovate". The DMCA seemingly has made immovation illegal unless you are a billionare who can afford teams of lawyers.
In 2000 America, is a non-lawyer truly free?
There really is very little control or recourse for corrupt judges, or for unethical judicial actions. Judge Kaplan is bound by ethical (and legal) ethics to DISCLOSE any conflicts of interest. By not doing so, he's comitted a serious, maybe even illegal act. Unfortunately, discipline of unethical judicial behaviour is EXTREMELY rare, especially in the Federal judiciary, where they are appointed for life. Discipline is handled by the Bar, which of course, is made up of lawyers who have a vested interest in the judges (IE, don't want to piss them off meaning their clients won't get fair treatment). Of course, Congress can impeach a judge, but this rarely happens. This is going to be a show trial, with the verdict a foregone conclusion with this guy in charge. He's already kowtowed to the MPAA at almost every opportunity. Obviously we now know why he didn't disqualify Garbus, he'd be in serious trouble had he done that. Note that Kaplan admonished Garbus, and threatened to have him disciplined AFTER the trial, while at the same time being AWARE that he had an equal or GREATER conflict of interest. This isn't about DeCSS. It's about an unconstitutional law that if allowed to stand may cause the advancement of technology to draw to a standstill. When the individual is no longer allowed to innovate, innovation dies. Look at most of the greatest inventions: The light bulb, the phonograph, cotton gin, steam engine, etc, all invented by INDIVIDUALS, not corporations...
In 2000 America, is a non-lawyer truly free?
Thanks for proving my point. Moderation here is totally broken. My post was topical, and not either trollish or flamebait. Thank you for proving that your level of maturity was arrested at age 6.
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Available here. Kaplan refuses the recuse request!
Hello, I realize what the article said, but come on. TW is a HUGE enterprise. We need more information before we try and roast him. Such as:
:-)
Who in TW did he work for?
What did he consult about?
What was his level of involvement?
How long was he consulting?
Come on. Could it be possible the laywers found something small and blew it out of proportion? Could this just be a legal move to sideswipe the process? I wouldn't put it past anyone, heck they did it to the EFF defense. This could just be a punch back.
Truely corrupt judges are (thank god) few and far between. But that means we have to have A LOT of information and be absolutely sure before we try and roast anyone, otherwise we look bad, and when we're fighting the stigma of hackerism, that's something we JUST CAN'T AFFORD.
On the other hand, if it turns out he is corrupt, I'll be standing right there ready for a good ol' fashin lynchin'...
http://kered.org
But on the other hand, in this case DeCSS is clearly breaking the law (DMCA) and they are guilty.
They aren't. I've got work to do. See This Thread: It's not an access control device
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
This trial is quickly turning into a kangaroo court, and it is only the fact that someone like Garbus is the lead attorney that may prevent this from becoming a VERY Bad Thing (tm).
... hi bingo
I'm not a lawyer, but aren't judges prohibited from presiding in cases that they are not impartial on?
IANALE (IANAL either), however, since the only real check and balance in this situation is the judge's own personal honor, to voluntarily step back and let someone else preside over the case, the effective answer to your question is "No." In Kaplan's case, he has demonstraded quite clearly that he has no honor or integrity whatsoever.
As another noted, this will be decided on appeal. The results of this trial are a forgone conclusion, and quite probably already paid for in advance.
Perhaps Kaplan could be impeached for knowingly presiding over this case with such a flagrant conflict of interest, but judges almost never get impeached. Even judges who commit heinous acts, such as raping a woman in their courtroom (it has happened) are difficult to dislodge. Something as innocuous as denying the little guy justice in favor of a large corporate cartel doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting any public attention - a prerequisite to any kind of reparation or justice.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I think it applies here, but instead of welding they used an off brand bike lock and they claim if we see inside the hood we'll start making cars just like theirs and selling it.
IEEE is on our side. The Association of Computing Machinery is on our side. The DMCA is on our side just biting itself in the ass.
Kaplan is on his own side anyhow.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
unless you show that you slearly intend to protect content.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Heck, even if I were the plaintiff I would want someone who was known to be above reproach. as it currently stands, it will just provide more ammo for an appeal.
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
Hmmm... I can't help but think that this could end up being a good thing in the long run. If an unfavorable ruling is issued against 2600 they should have a much easier time getting it overturned if they can show that the judge had a conflict of interest and did not step down. This is sort of what Microsoft did long before the current antitrust case when they were sued for bundling IE and Windows. The judge in that case had appointed a special master (Lawrence Lessig) to provide an analysis of the situation. Microsoft argued that the special master was biased based on an email that was inifinitely less convincing than the evidence agains Kaplan, but the judge refused to appoint a different master (largely because Microsoft had been seriously pissing the judge off throughout the trial). Well, Microsoft very quickly got the original ruling thrown out on appeal by pointing out the judge's refusal to appoint an "unbiased" master and they still to this day point to the appelate court's overturning of the decision as the government giving them the stamp of approval for integrating Windows and IE. I can't say that I agree with their reasoning, but if the same thing plays out in the DeCSS case then 2600 is sitting pretty. 2600 should take a lesson from one of the areas in which Microsoft actually performs superbly (i.e., litigation) and fight the current battle so that it looks as absolutely biased as possible in order to expidite the appeals process. Then again, this will only work if the appellate court is unbiased and that may be hoping for too much.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
I was doing some research and was trying to get to the EFF's website and it was taking for-fragging-ever to load. Took me a minute.. but then I checked /. and sure enough... found the reason. What timing. Thanks a lot Taco!
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
DEUD! i'm not paying to ride on some fucking road! what do you think this is, teh illinois or something??!?!? i'd rather pay teh taxes to pay for riding on teh road for free ok bye.
loev,
Axel
mhm23x3, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Well, it's government regulation that's keeping us from having hovercraft, in which case we wouldn't need roads.
Just a thought.
In the absence of government, people will figure things out on their own.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
Gee, conflict of interest? That's only the start of it. What you have here is a vast, movie-producing conspiracy against our anarchist beliefs! Every level of the govt. is involved - from the Drug Nazi's to the Dept. of Justice and Other Lawsuits. Stop the Govt. now!
This post brought to you by the number 2600 and the tag <ul>.
Umm.. okay.
A lawyer used to advise some company..
and many years later, he is a judge, and somehow it's conspiracy?
If the motion goes through and the judge is removed from the case, could it get thrown out? Or is this just another delay untill they get another judge? Anyone with knoledge of the law care to comment..
DVD case != Nutella or Napster or anything. Dude, at least get a clue (or .5 of one ) before you post.
What? - Einstein
I don't remember them all, and that textbook is long gone.
Progressive Tax
Subsidized Medical care
Public Education
Erf. Can somebody remember the other 7????
I haven't heard that. Granted, I don't keep completely up to date on politics though. Could you point me to a reference?
And aren't there tarrifs when a WTO member imports something from a non-WTO member? If that's the case, it could really FU the US economy. I don't know if Bush (or anyone who would end up in office) would be willing to risk that.
IANAL...
1201(a) doesn't come into play yet, so you are allowed to use DeCSS all you want, until October of this year.
However: 1201(b), having to do with manufacturing, importing, trafficing in, etc. things that circumvent, doesn't have any time-delay clause, so it's in effect now.
You can use DeCSS for a few more months, but you can write it, distribute it, etc.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
you still have an hour, they're protesting till 5pm! =)
*sigh* Er, I mean, you can't write it, distribute it, etc.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
...because how seriously can you take a non-lawyer who can't even spell "appeal"?
IAAL, and there are so many things wrong with the above post logically and legally that I would prefer you simply drop it into the karmic bit box.
Moderators, if you're not proficient in or informed about the subject of the post (microprocessor design, law, hot grits, programming, ice hockey, etc) THEN DON'T MODERATE IT UP!!!
It's bad enough that people who don't know what they're talking about are posting. It's far worse when people who don't know about the subject of the posts are moderating them.
A post with text similar to "I am not a (whatever), but..." should be karma'd to -1 UNLESS YOU KNOW ABOUT THE SUBJECT AND CAN CONFIRM ITS ACCURACY!!!
it's also possible that he knew everything that his firm was doing for TW. it's *possible* that he's a pink fluffy bunny. doesn't necessarily make it so.
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
IANAL but I would think that you would be able to get the appelate court to strike down the ruling simply because of the conflict of interest with the judge.
Q.
Some dirty DAMN communists think the can break the law and get off!
You're probably a troll, but I'll bite anyway.
2600 is legally in the gray area, as they may be guilty of trafficing in a circumvention device - that is, if CSS really is an access control device.
DMCA, however, is an overly broad law. If misused, it can effectively circumvent both the copyright law and the first sale doctrine.
If you didn't understand any of this, please go read the court documents here
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
I hope u guys have checked out the mpaa's press releases on this case I found the hyperlink FAQ incredibly informative.
But what I really like is this link of a harvard.edu/Law School website. For of those of you who are curious, the title of the page is, "Where can you find DeCSS?" I guess they have a bunch a ppl running around saying, IAAL...
Not that Kaplan has exceeded the bounds of judicial conduct, but he has been very antagonistic towards 2600 & their lawyers. It might also explain why he didn't dismiss Garbus when the plaintiffs asked him to - he's looking forward to handing him a high-profile lost case.
--
E_NOSIG
I am not at all suprised by this turn of events. I would hope that a judge is more interested in doing what's right than doing something very quickly. But I guess if you have already made up your mind on an issue, it doesn't matter what evidence in provided. Hopefully the hearer of the motion will see this as well.
Free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in lunch?
It seems to me that a judge who used to be on the payroll of one of the parties in a case is clearly in a conflict of interest. Don't judges usually dismiss themselves as soon as they are assigned a case like this? Could someone with some real legal training explain to me and my IANAL brethren how the judge could think about presiding over this case. Thanks.
-B
The sad truth is that 2600 is gonna lose this round. Kaplan's not interested in considering the constitutional merits of the DMCA, just whether Eric Corley violated the statute as written. (Which he did. It's a bad law, but DeCSS pretty clearly circumvents an access control device, and the law doesn't care for what purpose - all such circumvention is proscribed.) This is one for the appellate courts, IMHO.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
I can't even believe it. This case CrACKS me UP! muhahahahaha Maybe they'll make a movie about it. -m
"One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making exciting discoveries." (A. A. Milne)
Modded down? I don't think so. You're right on ther money. But, once a specific example gets out in the media, the judge will have to either jump out of the case, or face certain overturn on appeal. The eff lawyers are good enough to go to town with this one.
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
The real question is why it took as long as it did for this to come out into the open. Judge Kaplan has to have known what he did in the past; he should have recused himself at the very start of the trial. Did he really think that it was OK to preside over a trial where he had consulted for the plaintif on matters of relevance to the trial in the past?
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Actually, I have read every one of the transcripts released to date. In brief, Judge Kaplan has been very hard on the defense and has made some arguably incorrect rulings. If you read between the lines, he has also been helpful to the defense by outlining the areas where the defense needs to tighten up its case. Kaplan also tole the plaintiffs that if they couldn't show actual harm they didn't stand much of a chance of prevailing. Yes, Kaplan has been tough and perhaps wrong, but I don't think that it necessarially amounts to bias.
According to a friend of mine who works as a network manager in the Federal Court System
Kaplan is one of the more technically competent judges. If our case is as strong as I believe it to be, a technically strong judge is an advantage.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
You can find plenty of information about copyright and its origins, as well as its evolution here in the US and in other countries. Aside from basic facts like those (which you can find links to on the eff.org site), you're not likely to find any "unbiased" interpretations of what it all means. Everyone has their own bias and every document I've read (I'm doing some research for a speech I've got to do for one of my classes) shows a certain bias in its take on why certain things were done and what certain things mean. I haven't found anything that could be considered unbiased, and I don't expect to. Like anything else, you just have to read both sides and try to extract bits of truth from the rhetoric.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
In every proceeding I've ever seen, as soon as the assertion is made that the Judge is operating despite a conflict of interest, the case is postponed, another judge is called, and yet *another* judge reviews the matter of the *original* judge.
If the third judge thinks the first one is OK, then it *might* go back to the first judge, or any other judge.
This is in California.
-Ben
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I would think that you would be able to get the appelate court to strike down the ruling simply because of the conflict of interest with the judge
Perhaps not struck down, but a retrial ordered at least. On the other hand, if Kaplan is really as scurrilous as some are making him out to be (rather than merely incompetent), perhaps he's laying the groundwork for such a strike down based on other factors than flaws in the DMCA itself.
Consider: perhaps he realizes that the DMCA is flawed with respect to DVDs and DeCSS. If he rules that way, or it goes to appeal and the appeals court rules that way, then MPAA is up the creek (from their point of view) as far as that goes. On the other hand, if the case is thrown out for other reasons, no ruling has been made on DMCA and the law can still be used to intimidate other folks.
-- Alastair
I saw a "sciography" last night on Sci-Fi Channel - it was a documentary on Battlestar Galactica. They mentioned how Lucas tried to sue them for copyright infringement, citing 83 points of similarity, including many inane things (older rogue/younger idealist, dogfight patterns) that Lucas himself freely admits he took from mythology and old war movies. It made Lucas sound like a jerk.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
then the whole case is in jepordy.
Yes. If you are a clever plaintiff you choose the exact place you want a trial and time it right so that your favorite judge is available.
Judges have some discretion about what cases they accept. If a technology case goes to a particular courthouse and 1 judge there knows something about the technology involved he can voluntarist to sit on it.
This happens all the time and it's why judges need to be extremely meticulous about conflict of interest. I.e. If there is a software piracy or other such computer related case in Jamaica's Supreme Court I can guess which judge will be assigned to it. If however *I* am involved he will disqualify himself on the grounds that I repair his PCs and helped him produce html versions of his legal textbooks. ( His means he wrote them ).
This case is no different except that the Judge didn't disqualify himself. The fact that he previously advised the plaintiff on DVD should have come up in his own preparation for this case.
*That* is where the conspiracy comes up. The court that hears this motion will have 1 of 2 rulings. 1. He advised Fox on DVD and can't sit on this case or 2. He didn't advise them. Judges are chosen *because* they know this sort of thing. There is also the long shot that a higher court will find an attempt to pervert the course of justice and kill the whole case. To rule that way they would need to believe that he and the plaintiffs conspired to do this.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
I was at H2K (no pun intended) and there was a point that one of Emanuel's attorneys made during the mock trial which is really interesting and true...
"Remember you are not here to decide if my client is guilty or not, you are here to decide if the DMCA is just and constitutional."
That probably wasn't his exact wording but you get the jist of it. I think the jurors should be aware of this fact; but then again they may not even know what the DMCA entails beyond this specific case.
Of course in the mock trial, he was found innocent (hmm.. i wonder if there was a biased jury? hehe) and a good time was had by all (even Bernie S. who was playing the role of Jack Valenti...who BTW had a "stop the mpaa" t-shirt on). However I now fear the worst, and can only hope that this case is moved up to the higher courts.
--
--
#nohup cat
LOVE your handle by the way.
:-)
No, it was a reference to something else that happened to me here a few weeks ago. I posted a short post about a simmilar situation and was modded down, so of course I suspected that I was modded down for saying it.
Scott
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
After all this case has been destined to fail from the very beginning thanks to the vast and unfied forces lined up against it. Whilst we all know that DeCSS is a perfectly legal piece of software designed to facilitate playback under Linux, I think that very few people outside of /. and similar sites has any clue that this is anything other than a tool for the rampant piracy of DVDs.
Unfortunately since this case involves media corporations which are notorious for having their fingers in as many different pies as possible the coverage of this has been extremely biased in many places. And now we hear that the judge has helped the MPAA on DVD issues before? I suppose I should be suprised, but considering how the MPAA has twisted things so far I can't really say that I am.
Until America puts some kind of control on its corporate sector this kind of flagrant abuse of wealth and power seems likely to continue, at the expense of the little guy. Unfortunately since these corporations make so much money for the US government thanks to their freedom to gouge consumers and engage in dodgy business practices, it seems like the government has little inclination to change things.
Sure MS have been taken to court, but they were an extreme example of abuse of power and position. If they weren't so public they probably would have gotten away with it - hundreds of other companies do.
Unfortunately whilst it's still profitable for the government to allow it, you're going to keep getting situations like this where it is the commercial sector that gets the deck stacked in its favour.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
After recently reading the amicus brief filed by the CCIA and ALU as well one by the IEEE, I know that at least the reverse engineering ruling will be in favor of the defendants. There's too much at stake to require every business to have to start from scratch when designing a better product. It's a waste of time, patience, talent, and hurts the economy by keeping businesses locked either at square one or in court when they could be innovating. It's not what you invent that counts but how you do it when you're talking about quality.
The case brought by the MPAA is also a joke by itself. They've got a weak argument about authorization. They have a circular argument that says you can use this player cuz we say so. Sorry that's like Ford saying we should all drive black Model T's.
But this just made my day. Originally I thought hey it's not like either side has been completely impartial (pirates stealing, MPAA causing people to lose their jobs), but having seen the affidavits posted on EFF.org, I'm just shocked Kaplan was ever let into this case.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.