Slashdot Mirror
More On Kaplan's Ruling Making Links Illegal
Meenik sent us a wired news article on Judge Kaplan's ruling that effectively makes linking things like DeCSS illegal. This is a little bit more extreme of a piece then our coverage
here a few days ago but its worth a read.
It's more extreme than your coverage, not then your coverage. Jeez.
Now should one judge, a single faliable being...be able to make decisions as important as a human's right? This should be sent to a group, like the Supreme court...or even congress...
How Jaded Are You?
This is prejudiced against people who use the web! I'll fight till non-users of the web can't relate to illegality either.
-Leo
Q. Does Adrian Bacon read the Linux Advocacy Howto?
A. No. He is too busy reading Slashdot.
Viva Anales!
When are you morons going to realize that typing "first poast" or "first poste" or even the random correctly spelled "first post" is NOT GOING TO GET YOU FIRST POST WHEN YOU GET MODDED DOWN TO ZERO?
thanks. and go ahead and mod this down.
jack's bicycle is music to my ears
The point is that 2600 were linking to the material as a specifically as a means to distribute information on how to make a device to circumvent copy protection.
Still a stupid ruling, but please get some perspective guys.
"I think that Judge Kaplan does not know his head from his ass," says Adrian Bacon
Founder's Camp
Founder's Camp
News for non-Nerds. Stuff that matters.
Even if there is a way to enforce this law, it will only suit the large corporations who have the resources to go after those who link to their sites. Do you really think that Mr. Average User is gonna sue someone if they place a link to their homepage? Most likely not, unless it's a large corporation :)
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
(paraphrased) "2600 is metaphorically driving people to houses so they can rob people"
Hm. My local metropolitan transporation authority (read: public bus) gave some crazy guy a ride to the bus stop in front of my apartment and he broke into my house, so I'm going to sue the transporation authority so they can't actually bring people anywhere, just tell them where to go.
Damn, sometimes I just think that America litigation is there just to provide laughs. Then I realize that it affects me and I wish that we could just some how abolish entities like the MPAA after providing such a stupid and flawed statement and enforcing it in court.
nerdfarm.org
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
No problem, as long as selling my mailing address is made illegal, putting my phone number on telemarketer call lists is illegal, spam is illegal.
All of these are links, of a different sort - They all point you to products and/or services. Linking to something, even if the "something" is illegal, isn't the point.
Don't pick up the pho*(@)$*@&@!@ NO CARRIER
'But in a strongly worded statement earlier this summer, MPAA president Jack Valenti made it clear where he stood: "(2600 publisher Eric Corley) is transporting individuals electronically to locations in order to facilitate the illegal copying of DVDs. His behavior is analogous to driving someone to a home so that they may burglarize the home.'
How about "driving someone to the concert so they can sneak in through the back door". It amazes me that they compare downloading mp3s to burgulary and murder.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Did this article get put up because they mention Slashdot alongisde CNN?
I'm not flaming, it's an honest question!
--Dave
I would love to see the MPAA use this as grounds to go after sites like Altavista :)
-----
"So what are we going to do now, Brain?"
"The same thing we do every day Pinky, attempt to take over the world!"
It is nice to see a reporter like Declan, that actually knows something about what he writes.
This case is NOT about the legality of DeCSS, it is about muzzling the press.
First it is 2600 Magazine, next it will be any news organization. All the oppressor has to do is point to this case as a precident.
This ruling MUST be overturned if we are to retain what little freedom we *think* that we have left.
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
making a news writer liable for what s/he writes, the content that is, seems to be a little bit like moving towards a F451 future. people stop writing about important issues in their field because they don't want to be sued by another party, not for lible, but for spreading information.
wait, isn't that what a news writer is supposed to do?
This ruling seems to say that sticking one's head in the sand is enough to make problems go away. Not being permitted to link to things which are illegal is the same as denying their existance. This is Ostrich-like behavior.
Now that linking is illegal, what are the ramifications for print materials? This seems to say that a writer writing a book about a fictional drug dealer is unable to go speak with real ones. That is the real life equivalent of linking. A sports writer writing about the effects of certain kinds of steroids will be unable to list his sources, because listing a source is the print equivalent of a link.
How many levels of linkage does this ruling apply to? If my Japanese counterpart makes a page of links to illegal things, and then I link to that page, is that illegal? What if someone links to my page? Are they responsible, too?
--Jeff
HELP! HELP! I'm being redressed!
The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
For its part, 2600 simply removed the links to copies of DeCSS. But they left the non-HTML versions of the addresses intact, so visitors can simply copy and paste them into a browser window.
Now I'm two clicks away from DeCSS, damn!
My thing is that if you write the link in, it's more like saying "hey, there's a great book on making nukes that you can get at your library. It's called XXXXXX", which isn't wrong, is it?
Oh yah, and how is this going to be enforced anyways? This is another example of people that either do not understand technology making a ruling, or someone that fears the technology and is clinging to the thought that if they fight it they can bring the world back into the 60s. (would be an improvement on music
--I know I'm full of something, I'm just not sure what.
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
When links are outlawed, only outlaws will have links.
First of all, I haven't read the article yet. It's time for me to get off work so I don't have the time at the moment.
Will this ruling affect links generated by search engines? Perhaps only search engines who review and categorize all their links rather than automating it?
with Adrian Bacon; there is a definate cranial/rectal reversal going on behind the bench.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Does this ruling also apply to what people post to chat rooms and the like? Does that mean that /. is in violation of this ruling because someone tells the address of there mirror site?
So far as I can tell the ruling doesn't say anything about what other people or even AC's post. Just that the site is resposible. Tell me I'm wrong.
..which just shows that the human brain is ill-adapted for thinking and was probably designed for cooling the blood-T P
- ZDNet: Decision is "Shocking"
- San Jose Mercury News: DMCA comes back to haunt consumers
And so on. Also, Emmanuel Goldstein posted his comments on the decision on 2600 a couple days ago (I'm not sure if that's showed up onScene: A small living room in suburban Columbus Ohio. A relatively young couple are enjoying dinner on the floor, and watching a DVD version of "The Matrix".
John: This is my favorite part. I love how the phone glues to his head.
Marsha: Eww...
(There is a knock at the door)
John: Now who could that be. (opens the door) Can I help you?
MPAA Cop (He is a tall man with a russian accent): Your papers. Show us your papers.
John: Uh.. what papers.
MPAA Cop: I grow impatient. You are using a DVD and therefore are using our decryption process. Your papers now. I want to see your license agreement.
John: Well, it's rented.
(The cop motions to a man behind him, the man pulls out a gun and holds it to John's head)
John: HEY! WHAT THE (the cop hits him across the face)
MPAA Cop: I tire of your insolence. If you do not show me your papers then I am authorized to shoot you.
(Marsha suddenly emerges beside the door, holding an AK-47, she kicks the gun out of the second man's hand and shoots them both.)
Marsha: I never wanted to shoot them... I never wanted to be a criminal by watching a movie... I just wanted to be... to be... a LUMBERJACK!
*insert stupid song here*
What if I just put the URL on the page, without linking?
What if I link to a page that has a link to the illegal site on it?
How far will it go?
As Usual, IANAL, However I do not expect this to make it past the appeal process. In the past the supreme court upheld free speech in many qestionable circumstances. All that 2600 has done is provide information about where you can find material that can be used to circumvent copy protection. The key point here is that they are not directly conspiring with you to break the law, they are merely pointing you to a tool that can be used for a variety of reasons. If you and they got together in a chat room or through e-mail decided that you were going to make copies of some copyrighted dvd's and upload them to the net, then you would be going beyond the bounds of free-speech. Merely providing information always has been and always will be acceptable. If it had not been, you would not be able to find information on manifacturing explosives at your friendly neighborhood library.
If this changes and I doubt it will. It will do nothing but force people who want/need knowledge pertaining to these subjects underground.
Aaron Bryden
Aaron Bryden
abrydenREMOVETHIS@gmail.com
OK, in the wake of this decision that everyone is obviously upset with, I figured I would throw something else into the fray here. With this recent ruling, we have found out that it is now illegal to even link to a site with illegal information (or at least information which is the property of big corporations who have alot of money and interests to protect). This is a very interesting ruling and sets quite the precedent, which could come into play very soon.
The questioning over links to illegal material is not a new one. The biggest example that I can think of here would be the Napster cases. They are effectively in trouble because they are providing links to illegally copied material. Not only has Napster gotten in trouble for this now, but 2600 has as well. I think we are starting to see a trend here.
Not only is it now illegal to carry the illegal information in the Unites States, but it is illegal to link to said illegal information. An interesting implication of this would be banner ads. What do you do when a child is using the computer and "subjected" to all the porn that they innevitably are (note the dripping of sarcasm). If this porn is provided through a banner add, that page has effectively become illegal. Who is to blame for this if the banner is supplied dynamically, the provider or the page owner?
Also, does anybody know how this works in physical print? What is the punishment for containing information on obtaining illegal information? Can you get in trouble if you write a letter to the editor which contains directions to a cache of kiddie porn? Where is this line drawn?
Well at least this is getting a bit more acknowledgement. Wired has a bit more mainstream readership than Slashdot...
The whole thing just makes me sad and cynical. You ask questions like "What if they link to another site that links to DeCSS?" "Where do you draw the line?" "Can Wired be busted for linking to 2600?" or you point out how stupid Valenti's car-driving metaphor is, but nobody cares except the other complainers.
You can't ask these questions of MPAA or Kaplan and expect an answer. And the other complainers can't do anything about it.
Sigh. Maybe I'm just depressed today or something.
MPAA's Jack Valenti is quoted as saying "(2600 publisher Eric Corley) is transporting individuals electronically to locations in order to facilitate the illegal copying of DVDs. His behavior is analogous to driving someone to a home so that they may burglarize the home."
I can't say I like the analogy, but if he's going to make it, I would say it's more like driving someone across the border into Mexico (or Canada, or wherever) so they can purchase tools with which to burglarize the home.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
First of all, I'd like to just say I'm grinning wildly at 2600's response. "Oh, we can't have it hyperlinked? That's okay, we'll just make it inline text." Following the letter of the law, gotta love it.
It never ceases to amaze me how we, the 'net users, are constantly subject to laws created by people that rarely use the internet to do more than scan porn sites and read their email. (Yes, I am talking about the judges, politicians, etc.) Perhaps we are the ones who are causing them to fear what they do not know, however they will never understand their impact unless they bother to learn something.
The internet is possibly the truest form of anarchy (yes, you've heard this before, bear with me) and that terrifies the hell out of these old people in control. We have a system in place that there is no true way to regulate. If we don't like the rules for .uk or .au, we'll just take our domain to .it. There is no way for them to have a law that all countries will agree upon. IMO, the United States is becoming more of a dictatorship when it comes to the Internet than most of the other countries.
As long as these old men (and women) and companies/industries are in control, there will never be a law passed for the Internet that actually protects the individual users. The internet is a communication interface. I wish they would learn to treat it like one.
It has been said that there needs to be a revolution every ten years in order to keep the government honest. I think we're long overdue.
--Lise
Now I have to copy the link and paste it into the address window?
How are all the script kiddies gonna crack their anime dvd's?
"These are the days that must happen to you." -Walt Whitman
Did he just make the whole point of hypertext illegal? Granted, he did just do this for DeCSS, but what about when there are other things on the internet that people don't want you to read... Wait until someone links a corporate helpfile to a specific products bug-traq which raises awareness of a flaw and causes closer scrutiny of the product... One could argue that this "bad publicity" negatively affects the manufacturer's sales... We don't want people to find out about the products they are buying... we just want them to buy them online.
I've got the sales website right now:
Here's a black box with somehting in it that costs $25.00. Here is another made by our competitor that costs $50.00. We'd tell you what it is that we're selling, but you might figure out what our competitor's product is, recognize that one of us is giving a better deal and that would hurt one of our's business... We would tell you what our company is, but then you might know who are competitors are, so we can't even tell you that, and then you might show a preference towards one of us. So all we'll tell you is that we've got a product, and it's for sale. Please send cash to:
P.O. Box XXXXX
Anytown, NJ
and we promise we'll send you whatever our product is.
I've got it... rather than use the internet to spread information, lets restrict it in such a way that no useful information can be obtained.
This vaguely reminds me of something I would see on a Monty Python skit.
You say you want a revolution?
-
In May, Microsoft demanded that links to a copy of its Kerberos source code be removed from a discussion forum.
Hey! - That us!Seriously - can anyone explain how this is legal in any way at all?
-
Kaplan's ruling, legal experts say, appears to be an unprecedented expansion of traditional copyright law.
I thought that the whole point in having a seperate legislature and judiciary, was that the people who set the law, and the people who apply the law are different. It looks like the judge is making up his own laws to me, and un-constitutional laws at that.However, the thing that I have most problem with is how the law is being changed, not that it is being changed at all.
Any lawyers out there? What would be the legal position if I sold a phonebook of illegal gun traffickers? Would I be breaking any laws?
cheers,
G
What sort of implication does this have for sites like Yahoo! that have a human being adding sites to their directories. That implies they are knowingly linking to sites that have illegal material on them.
Is this ruling essential eroding the very fabric of the web? So much for the great postmodern theory of 'One Book'. What I find interesting is you can circumvent the issue by just providing the web address without using the underlying technology to actually link. Is this whacked or what?
You know the Supreme Court is going to allow linking, and drug information, and every other free speech issue proceed. Why do these lower court officials create such a mess? Do they not think things all the way through? Or perhaps they do, and that is even scarier.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
I downloaded DeCSS from a site I found on Infoseek.
"Property is theft, therefore theft must be property, right?"
If it becomes illegal to "link" to sites, will it still be possible to write the URLs on a website?
How the #!$%# can the court NOT see that this is an issue of free fucking speech?
The examples in the article about companies suing because people linked to copyrighted material is pathetic. These people need to figure out how to limit access to the information through technology not through legislation.
Please write your Congressperson today!
"[Linking] is analogous to driving someone to a home so that they may burglarize the home." -- Jack Valenti
A far better analogy would be that linking is like telling someone on the street what someone's home address is and raising your finger to point in its direction. The idea that this is meaningfully different from the pure speech act of telling someone what the address is is ludicrous.
Maybe all this is to remind us as individuals that we have much less control then we ever thought we have had when it comes to interacting with others. :)....
;)
A man was recently sentenced to 4 years in prison for having sex with a horse. (As Leno said, when will people learn that neigh means neigh?). It may have been on his own property with a horse he owned, but still he got sentenced to prison for it. The US is not -completely- free, nor does it people want that much freedom
Here, there are people linking to matterial that, while it is technical and good hearted in it's nature and motives (okay, so not entirely), it is, like it or not, illegal material. Just as links to kitty porn and maps that show where hemp is being grown is. And standing out in the middle of the street naked is illegal to. The nudity thing is covered by other laws, but the DMCA was passes to put certain limits on what can legally be done by internet users, limits primarily desigined to uphold copyrights in the digital scheme of things.
To understand the government's point of view, you must look at several things.
1) The people are the government in the US, where majority rules. (Lobbying doesn't do sh!t, btw, I don't care what you hippies say.)
2) The internet is a form of a public utility, grown in the mysterious space where ownership is shared among the government and the telecommunictaions industry. Because the wires are laid over government land, the government has regulatory final say over everything that goes on over that network. And while first ammendment rights are on loan to a good deal of these utilities, the government reserves the right to impose restrictions of your rights in this area. This is what makes the DMCA possible.
3) Linking to illegal material makes you a criminal, at least in an accessorary way. Sorta like being the guy who hires a hitman to take out your enemy, but a much with less at stake.
"Your rights online" has always stuck me as something ridiculous for a title of this section. We have as many rights on the internet as we would inside of a government building, say the white house. To all governemnt lands are open to the public, and the government is free to restrict access in whatever way it wants to, and this power was granted to the governement from the very begining. People do, of course, have a say in it all. Ever see a city try to annex a suburban area? Not always an easy task, usually something determined by the public. If the public wants more rights and more freedom on the internet.... well, it shouldn't have voted to administration that pushed the DMCA through into office in the first place.
What about this? It's link to a song with the code for descramble.c (the same as on the back of the t-shirts) as the lyrics (only englisised a bit) that I wrote. The originally written DeCSS was GPL'ed. I would encourage everyone to download the song and swap it around on Napster. Maybe we can merge these two cases into one- so /. can post half as many articles regarding the two subjects. "Update on the MPAA vs. Napster proceedings"...
Well. Here we go with linking to DeCSS is like driving a burglar to the scene of the crime. Hence it follows that downloading DeCSS is like burglarizing a house. Hence downloading DeCSS is like permenently taking things that don't belong to you. Do I need to point out that its a bad analogy?
So why don't we say something like: driving a burglar to a hardware store where he can legitimatly purchace the tools he intends to use for his future crime. Lets say they're lock-picks. That likens downloading DeCSS with legally aquiring a set of lock-picks, and this only brings into question as to whether getting lock-picks should be legal. I'd say yes, but that doesn't seem to matter.
Lastly, I think a more accurate analogy would be driving an interested party to a library with full knowlege that he'll read about burglarizing techniques and how a tool he already owns (a computer in DeCSS's case) may be employed in such a process. Oh no! the party is gaining information that could be used towards either a crime or to preventing future crimes. Well this is just too accurately mushy for legal grounds, so we'd better make the case a bit harder huh.
But maybe I should point out that this book doesn't really inform anyone about stealing anything, rather it informs them how they can get access to something they have license to, such that they might (or not) distribute it to persons without such a license. Since this could be done the old fasioned way of copying the enitre data on the disc (if one had the equipment), how is it suddenly such a bigger crime?
-Daniel
At this rate, by the time I graduate, that's what I'll have to do so that I don't get busted for doing anything 'illegal'
The web is dead ... well if these things get any crazier, setting up a web site or using a web browser would be treated as criminal activity. Its strange how on the one hand these companies want to force oppressive technology down our throats and on the other hand prevent people from using technology that could provide free access to information.
Information wants to be free, but there a bunch of corporate dictators out there who make Castro appear liberal.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Mr. Bradbury needs to update his novel
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Here's what you do, .. then have the news sites link to your page with the link to the illegal stuff :-)
..
...
remember that bunker on some island near england was it ? host a website there, and put links to the actuall illegal stuff
cause linking to a link to illegal stuff should still be ok
don't know how long that will hold up though
Gerard
Part of the problem with all this is that everyone (especially Jack Valenti) is constantly trying to draw up some fucking analogy for all these legal problems.
... blah blah blah."
"This is just like someone driving you to another person's home to burglarize it."
Or:
"This is just like
The danger lies in these stupid analogies that everyone is trying to use. I mean, I don't know if this the case or not -- but is it possible that what's going on here -- linking to DeCSS, sharing music with Napster -- is it just possible that, well, this sort of stuff isn't really analagous to other non-internet things?
I don't mean this as flamebait or a troll. I'm serious: couldn't this one of those odd moments where everything that we're talking about *can't* be reduced to some cut-and-dried analogy because, well, this kind of stuff is really "like" nothing we've ever seen before?
For its part, 2600 simply removed the links to copies of DeCSS. But they left the non-HTML versions of the addresses intact, so visitors can simply copy and paste them into a browser window.
Making the ruling almost meaningless. The bottom line is that the technologists will always be one step ahead of the corporations, the lobbyists, the lawmakers and the courts. (Reference DeCSS, the endless Napster clones, the Cyberpatrol hack, the profusion of mirror sites anytime a court orders the removal of content from a website, etc.) As long as we, the creators of technology, remain commited to civil rights (and I think it is in the nature of such forward looking people to be so commited), then civil rights online will have a bright future.
First, it forbids sharing beyond the original author: ((page 37))
"Section 1201(f)(3) permits information acquired through reverse engineering to be made available to others only by the person who acquired the information."
Second, it forbids modification beyond the scope of the initial program.((page 18))
Although Mr. Johansen testified at trial that he created DeCSS in order to make a DVD player that would operate on a computer running the Linux operating system, DeCSS is a Windows executable file; that is, it can be executed only on computers running the Windows operating system. Mr. Johansen explained the fact that he created a Windows rather than a Linux program by asserting that Linux, at the time he created DeCSS, did not support the file system used on DVDs. Hence, it was necessary, he said, to decrypt the DVD on a Windows computer in order subsequently to play the decrypted files on a Linux machine. Assuming that to be true, however, the fact remains that Mr. Johansen created DeCSS in the full knowledge that it could be used on computers running Windows rather than Linux. Moreover, he was well aware that the files, once decrypted, could be copied like any other computer files.
I've been wondering: if enough geeks become sufficiently upset with anti-internet legislation, can we shut down the web for the day in protest? The only way I can think of doing this (besides DDOS, which is quite anti-social) would be to shut off the root servers. Is there any other way? This would make people appreciate the medium that they are trying to supporess, and also make people realize that they don't own the internet.
ex cathedra-style rulings, prohibiting
the importation of newly manufactured FN FAL and
similar receivers.
America. No links. No freedom. No guns.
I'm so glad we "won" the cold war.
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
Has anyone read the page (http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/index.htm) at the MPAA's site?
I have never read about such strong-arming tactics being used in the US before. Not ever in war time. Its appalling. Is absolutely Stalinist!
And this for the cause of what exactly? So some bozos can create scenarios that look like Wag the Dog?
Big Brother Studios brings you The execution! Starring YOU! (And your wallet of course.)
I'm only listening to live music from now on and reading books and surfing the 'Net... The RIAA and the MPAA can go suck vacuum. They can't make me pay to watch this drek. (TV hasn't been worth watching since McCluhan's day.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Let's see if I understand the "reasoning" here.
:-)
1) I live just down the street from a major university. This university has numerous libraries; each contains countless books detailing criminal acts. Some of these libraries include war crime archives - we're not just talking about offing your neighbor here!
2) The library conveniently provides a card catalogue to enable me to quickly identify where to find books detailing poisons, explosives, etc., plus law books that will give me case histories (in the law library) that can help me avoid detection and escape conviction.
3) Since the University benefits from my presence (they charge me to park my car in their lot, depend on citizens like me to defend their cut of the state income tax, etc.), they "vicariously" benefit from any criminal act I perform.
4) The University also knows that Congress wants to criminalize all chemistry textbooks (lest they be used to produce explosives - never mind what that will do to the chemistry, medical and pharmist training), so they must be aware that the information in this library can be used to commit crime - YET THEY DO NOTHING!
5) Therefore, by this reasoning, the University has a duty to burn its card catalogue, remove the dedicated terminals that provide access to the online card catalogue (and, in fact, has superceded it - the last time I was in the library they were using old card catalogue 'cards' as scratch paper), pull the plug on the internet interface to that same online card catalogue, and randomize the location of all books in the library.
Thank God the freshmen just arrived. They always seem to be good at randomizing stuff on campus.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
http://cnn.com
There. Now, according to Kaplan, Slashdot is legally responsible for all material that is currently being hosted on CNN.com. Christ, if Kaplan had taken the time to go over this with somebody with a bit of a clue, he would have realized that he really does have his head up his ass.
Here's a question: Is it illegal to link to a site that is linking to "illegal material?" For example, if I have a link to 2600 on my homepage, and 2600 has a link to DeCSS, am I breaking the law? What about if some guy I don't even know has a link to the homepage of a former college instructor of mine, who has a "former students" section with a link to my homepage, which has a link to 2600, which has a link to DeCSS? Are the MPAA cops going to show up and cuff-n-stuff this guy for his Five Degrees of HTML Separation from Illegal Things?
Does Kaplan grok recursion? I'll bet not.
--
--
The New World Order is upon us, and it's about damned time.
If it becomes illegal to link to copyrighted material... Isn't the MPAA's web site copyrighted? Let's all file a class action lawsuit against all sites containing a link to the MPAA! We'd be doing them a favor!
Gonzo
To state that this is a pot of imerious swill by a neo-victorian mentality is to understate the obvious. Bring your marshmellows and sticks boys, the 3rd Reich never had a book burning like we are in for...
Well, like I said, it was a stupid ruling. I first typed it with a lot of clarifiers, and it turned into a piece of legalese. Nested if statements don't make the english language very easy to read.
Anyway, as far as the judge was concerned, DeCSS was designed to copy discs. This does suggest that he slept through half the preceedings, but this was pretty much what he ruled. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, DeCSS is a device that circumvents copy protection. Maybe he didn't rule it was a device, but thats a nitpick.
My point was simply that the ruling doesn't make all links to DeCSS illegal. It does make linking for the purpose of distributing DeCSS illegal. Search engines are not trying to distribute it. They're neutral. 2600 were. They weren't just trying to helpfully explain what they weren't allowed to distribute. They were trying to distribute it. It doesn't matter what you or I believe DeCSS was created for. As far as the law is concerned its there to steal from, murder, and destroy the movie industry.
I am a little confused why a single article like this (even one by the esteemed Mr. McCullagh) gets posted. There's been plenty of other coverage of this in other media, much of it just as pro-DeCSS:
They don't care about the quality of the initial posts, because all they do is set a topic. The readers do the research, and then discussion and moderation brings up all the relevant information.
They could post things like "Someone said Linux sucks!" or "This judge made it illegal to link to DeCSS!" and all the good stuff would still come out in the discussion.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
The last protest about this case that I remember was sometime back in January/Febuary by my local 2600 crew (in Washington DC). Now that an actual RULING has come down, in exactly the manner we feared, are there any more protests/leaf-letting activities planned? I think a great idea would be to pass out printed copies of the source code, pointing out that it could one day be illegal unless they take action.
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
Desire is not an occupation.
sue me http://www3.telus.net/c0sm0/free%20dvd/decss121b.z ip
...Every time _I_ want to steal something, I make sure to go to www.mapquest.com to get directions.
After all, they're fast! Much faster than highlighting a triple-A map, and those are out of date sometimes. Also, mapquest.com always gets me the fastest escape route, which helps me evade capture if I set off any alarms by accident. Their maps fit on a single page, so they don't block my rearview like a big fold-out.
Plus, if I get the number wrong, Mapquest.com helps me determine the correct address! They're active accomplices!
88
The questioning over links to illegal material is not a new one. The biggest example that I can think of here would be the Napster cases. They are effectively in trouble because they are providing links to illegally copied material.
I'm not sure this view is correct.
Napster *is* linking to copyrighted material.
If I own the CD it *is* legal to copy, archive, manipulate, etc, the CD. So it is not illegially copied.
If I don't own the CD, but got it through Napster, the worst anyone has done is that the owner, who legally copied and MP3ed the CD, has *distributed* the material. The legality is up to copyright law, but linking to it is not illegal; downloading it may not be illegal, under fair use, if you aren't using it for profit or commercial use. *Distributing it again* may or may not be legal, if you don't own the material in question(probably not), but it will be a mix of fair use and copyright law.
However, this does open the door for making mp3 encoders illegal, for the same reason that deCSS is illegal! All it is doing is taking one format and converting it to another, right? Or is the act of decrypting different than the act of encoding? Mathematically, they are very similar, I think...
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
someone earlier asked if search engines would be in trouble if this becomes precendence. what about a link like this that enters in the search criteria right away? is that illegal? and who get carted off to jail? Google, Slashdot, or me?
---
I post links to stuff here
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here.
Myself I am waiting to see how far this goes. Next, search engines WILL be went after so that they only show "vanilla" things.. searches that have already been checked and verified that no illegal data is there.
Scoff.. if you will --> but the times are changing all around us. SOMEONE will try this and they will get a judge who is either being fed money, or has no idea about the far reaching nature of his/her decisions.
After this has happened, then they will talk to Microsoft and the "other" OS makers and attempt to install software for "quality assurance purposes" that will make sure everything on your computer is legit. Heck, they might even check your bank account and information to make sure that you arn't "cheating" Uncle Sam.
And the thorn in the side at this time will be Linux Distros. If they put in these silly devices, how long will it take for the open source community to weed out these offending lines of code?
"We have found that the operating system known as 'linux' has been completely unregulated and is contributing to 95% of the piracy. We feel that in order to protect the consumer, and to curb piracy, this dangerous and illict technology must be banned."
If it ever goes this far, they will see EXACTLY why you shouldnt push around the 'geeks' who control the technology they use. That, and I cant wait for the "underground" internet.. pier to pier, modem to modem, communication.
I see it as the "Second Coming"
=-=-=-=-=
Smile like a Cheerio! >:O
The problem with the web is that the people who attempt to control it do not understand it.
They do not understand that no matter how many laws they create, the people will always find a way to acces the information they want. If only one country has this law, servers in other countries will be totally unaffected.
The solution is clear, set up your server in Iraq. No american companies will be able to touch you.
http://www3.telus.net/c0sm0/free dvd/decss121b.zip
Oh well. The reason we have an appeals process is so that when acts of blatant idiocy like this occur, they can be overturned.
I rather doubt that any of this lower-court idiocy would survive higher court scrutiny. The first ammendment implications should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. It's pretty much expected that the small fry officials can be bought and sold, fortunately the higher courts still seem to have some integrity left.
Of course, it's becoming obvious that the IP and Copyright regulations are in need of a massive overhaul. Perhaps a summit is in order....
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Who's to stop the mega-corps now? "You have a site that tells people how to [fill in the blank with your favorite anarchic passtime], which will encourage [piracy][copyright infringement][free thought][other bad action]. Take it down or we'll see you in court."
Holy crap, guys, what WON'T they be able to do now?
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Well, it's looking like the Freenet model (the information can be obtained, but it's not possible to determine where it really resides) is going to end up the only way to distribute some of this stuff without drawing a lawsuit or the FBI. Another method I thought of was to tell people to encrypt requests and post them to alt.secret.messages, and then have an autoresponder email the desired material to the requester via mixmaster or equivalent. The more of this crap I read about, the madder I get, and the more I'm enclined to join the Rebels against the Empire.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
If they're successful in stopping linking to DeCSS source (which will be virtually impossible), will they go on to keep search engines from searching for or displaying search results containing links to the DeCSS source code? Could the search engines even comply very easily?
A quick search for 'DeCSS source code' on Google shows that the DeCSS source code can be downloaded from literally dozens of places, many of which are outside the US.
It seems like every time they try to remove content from the web like this, it just pops back up somewhere else, and often more of it than before.
If they can't get the search engines not to return hits on searches, will MPAA or DVD-CCA try to shut down every web site that is found in the search engines, even those outside the US?
I have a better analogy than Jack Valenti's pithy masterpiece. Making linking illegal is like criminalizing possession and distribution of marijuana. I'm not taking a stand here on whether criminalizing marijuana was incredibly stupid (it was); I'm just making a comparison. Think about it.
Before Nixon criminalized marijuana:
Pot is distributed (and imported) by stoner college kids.
After Nixon criminalized marijuana:
Pot is distributed through the good offices of those organizations that specialize in dealing with the high risks associated with apprehension and imprisonment, namely, organized crime.
Before DCMA/Judge Kaplan:
Arguably naughty software is obtained by following a link to a server where the software is stored.
After DCMA/Judge Kaplan/other brilliant jurists who follow the reasoning in the 2600 decision:
Arguably naughty software gets distributed through the good offices of those organizations that specialize in dealing with the high risks associated with apprehension and imprisonment, namely, organized crime.
Coincidence? We'll see.
DeCSS sure does a hell of a job viewing my dvds, I mean that 4 gig file sitting on my drive is great. Had someone written a legal linux player you wouldn't be in this mess now. But god forbid the zealots should pay for anything. I think RMS said it best:
"The only good thing about the unauthorized copy is that you avoid giving money to the owner. This is good, because the owner does not deserve a reward for making software proprietary."
http://tlug.linux.or.jp/rms.html
Theres the interview to back it up. RMS advocates breaking the law.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
...following the links from the story, I saw some interesting thoughts in the lawsuit between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vs. some other people, which can be found here. Halfway through all the legalese, I came up with these sparkling gems of wisdom:
Do those who browse the websites infringe plaintiff's copyright?
Blah, blah, blah, copyright stuff, and then:
See MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that when material is transferred to a computer's RAM, copying has occurred; in the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by license, such an act constitutes copyright infringement)
Whoah. So if open Slashdot, and someone posted some DeCSS code, automagically I'm a copyright infringer? But then...
Marobie-FL., Inc. v. National Ass'n Fire Equip. Distrib., 983 F.Supp. 1167, 1179 (N.D.Ill. 1997) (noting that liability for copyright infringement is with the persons who cause the display or distribution of the infringing material onto their computer)
Oooooh. This must mean that if I open up, let's say, the Louvre's webpage, and I open up a page with the Mona Lisa, and since I do not own the Mona Lisa and as far as I know I dont have express permission by license, then I'm a copyright infringer?
Finally, it is in the public's interest to protect the copyright laws and the interests of copyright holders.
And you wonder why people don't like big corporations and their lawyers...
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
We must fight this and any infringment on our freedoms or we lose them!
Fight Spammers!
This is only happening because of a popular mystique surrounding compuer language. The motion picture industry wants to control how people watch DVDs.
Say the way to watch DVDs on your Linux box had a regular language solution. You just had to type, "pretty please play this DVD." This would piss the industry players off, but they wouldn't be able to ban people from tellling each other how to watch DVDs on their computers.
If the motion picture industry doesn't want people watching DVDs, they should come up with a way to prevent it that can't be bypassed with information that is simple to explain in an email. It would be like Ford making a car that can be stolen by saying "please open and start." If they're dumb enough to make a car like that, they can't whine about people telling each other how to steal them, and expect the gov't to launch a brigade of mind police to make sure nobody is spreading the news.
The same thing is happening with the music debate. The music industry won't be able to solve the problem of music sharing through technology, so they'll try to use legislation and enforcement. The problem is that the draconian nature of that enforcement will have far more devastating consequences to society than any degree of "copyright infringement."
This brings up a central and serious problem. The single most influential force acting on our democratic and legislative processes is lawyers and lobbyists employed by big business. This is a problem!
Negativeland has an incredible resource on copyright and related issues. Fairtunes is becoming a great place to get involved with these issues. Lots of stuff happening!
If a pickpocket meets the Buddha, all he will see is the Buddha's pockets.
I don't like being the devil's advocate, but a few weeks ago I did come up with a thought that could be used to argue that there can indeed be legal action against a person linking to deCSS or something similar:
Not the link itself would be the problem, but the implicated participance in the crime (that of distributing the stuff).
Compare it with the drugs dealer next door [if applicable]. Pointing at the house saying "there is a drugs dealer there" is perfectly legal. Cheering at the beauty of cocaine and putting a sign in your yard saying "Want some cocaine? I can cut you in on a good deal" and then directing people to your neighbours house.. that's a different story.
You are perfectly allowed to do that, free speech is unharmed. But it could implicate that you have some involvement.
Perhaps a bit thin, but I cannot find any flaws in this reasoning other than the grey area to find out what exactly would qualify as involvement.
I can now imagine why a link called "Fsck the MPAA, get deCSS" would be judged as involvement in the act of distributing and thus has a basis for legal action.
I'll admit that I probably haven't read enough on this issue to post the following, but I am going to anyway. Does this ruling cover only linking, or does it also cover plain text URLs? If I put the URL on my site, and don't make it a link, and you have to copy it and paste it into the location of your browser is that considered illegal by this ruling?
I was reading Richard Feynman's The Meaning of it All and he had a great bit of wisdom at the end of his second chapter. Granted, it was in reference to the Russians, but its applicable nwo, and I quote:
Man has been stopped before by stopping his ideas. Man has been jammed for long periods of time. We will not tolerate this. I hope for freedom for future generations - freedom to doubt, to develop, to continue the adventure of finding out new ways of doing things, of solving problems.
Why do we grapple with problems? We are only in the beginning. We have plenty of time to solve the problems. The only way that we will make a mistake is that ithe impetuous youth of humanity we will decide we know the answer. This is it. No one else can think of anything else. And we will jam. We will confine man to the limited imagination of today's human beings. "
Read him. Understand this, and wake up. This is too scary when the censorship gets close enough that I can feel it. Feynman understood it in the 60's.
Witty quotes suck.
How long 'til we have 20,000 lawsuits preventing the linking to a whole host of 'objectionable' material (as define by those who have the desire to file a lawsuit, which could be just about anyone, I guess.)
All those wonderful non-techinical people who are supplying the power behind these lawsuits are finally going to really bump up against the realities of the internet, mainly that you can't make information go away, not matter how many people you sue. It has progressed to the point that they are dealing with the very fabric of the web, which is irreducible. You can not take hyper-links out of the web. You can't sue or buy them away.
I think this is VERY significant becuase it is no longer about just the content of one entity on the web, it's about the way the web works. Try to make one 'topic' illegal to link to, then watch the flood. The legal system -should- quickly realize how incredible unenforcible and rediculous this is.
This actually kinda makes me feel good... I'm glad this was part of the ruling, 'cause it's a mile-stone... and once we get over this hurdle, and it is realized that you just can't stop hyper-linking, it will be one more legal battle the web will have taken care of.
I had a couple of thoughts on this. First: the MPAA sucks.
Second: Is this the first step before they try to ban posting a URL? Because honestly, is there even a point to banning a link when people can cut and paste? What would happen if a browser automatically converted an "http://" string into a link? Would that be a legal link, or make the plaintext URL posted into an illegal activity? And finally, isn't it easy to see the relation between this and a journalist getting arrested because they listed the address of a crackhouse. (Clearly promoting the sale of illicit drugs)
Third: Having not yet used gnutella, but knowing its operation in theory, I wonder if you could tag documents, release them over gnutella, and have a type of linking system where you could easily "browse" by hooking into the gnutella framework. Publish a webpage, and it is anonymous and uncensorable? I can't even imagine how the MPAA sleeps nights. Has anyone done this yet?
A: not european :) (4PM start)
B: am socialist (personal philosophy that is) C: I have to get into the shower right now so that I can get to work on time
Intolerant people should be shot.
http://www3.telus.net/c0sm0/free dvd/decss121b.zip _
There are FAR too many preposterous assumptions and conclusions drawn by Kaplan in his ruling. I don't believe that he is senile, so the only logical conclusion to draw is that he ruled that way intentionally. Basically, it was too 'hot' of a decision, and it would be too 'risky' for his career, and he didn't want to make it... so he made a decision that was guarenteed to be taken to the appeals court.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
My theory in a nutshell:
Until the judicial system and government as a whole really understands the technology they are governing, irrational decisions such as this one will continue to occur.
I'd be willing to bet that the Judge presiding over this case was subject to one of two possibilities:
One being, he simply didn't fully understand the concept of linking and made an uneducated judgment.
The second being, he was overwhelmed with technical data to clearly see the simplicity behind it, and fully understand that it's absurd to prohibit such a thing.
Either possibility comes down to the fact that the person responsible for making the decision was not fully understanding the technology and writing it off as "newfangled contraption".
Judgments like these are creating the precident for future wrong doings. The most disturbing fact is that linking is such a basic requirement for the internet.. and such governing bodies don't realize what they're making decisions on.
-brain
I've noticed that recently it seems like the Judicial branch of the government is pratically making laws. This is another example where, because the Legislative Branch hasn't said anything specifically, that one appointed (not elected) judge gets to make the law.
Anybody else see a problem with this?
http://www.2600.org/news/1999/1227-help.html (scroll down)
Download DeCSS.
This link goes to a CGI which redirects to a random link pulled from 2600's plain text list of links. This means that my site does not contain any DeCSS code, nor does it contain links to DeCSS code. If 2600's page is now legit, then my script links to a legal page. Yet, if you click on the above link, you get code. Hmmm...
Source code here (warning - I wrote it in about 3 minutes).
All of these are links, of a different sort - They all point you to products and/or services.
Even if these were actually made illegal, the big difference is that it would just be you trying to get it enforced and not powerful and wealthy interests like the RIAA, MPAA, etc. You could probably have the legal equivalent of a smoking gun, and the prosecutors wouldn't bat an eye, since you don't donate buckloads of political cash. If this action had been brought by Joe Nobody, you'd never have seen such an absurd ruling. I can only hope that it'll be overturned by a higher court. (Kudos to 2600 for publishing the 'links' as plain text. Let's see the judge try to suppress that.)
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
(Mozilla M18-2000081415)
DNA just wants to be free...
On my Mac, I can simply command-click on a URL anywhere and it'll be opened. In fact, if I had a mouse with a second programmable button I could program it as a command-click, and still be able to access DeCSS with just one click.
If/when the 2nd Circuit reviews Kaplan's denial of recusal, I suggest that we submit a brief/petition urging the Appeals court to find that recusal was warrented. If recusal was wrongly denied, all of Kaplan's opinions, decisions, and orders will be vacated. The standard for recusal under 28 USC 455 is:
Note that the standard requires only that "the trial judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned", not that they must be proven. It is a "significan doubt" question.
As a matter of precedent, see the discussion of Republic of Panama v. American Tobacco Company, Inc. No. 99-30685 (5th Cir. 7/20/2000) in a post I made on openlaw. In that case a judge whose trial association submitted a brief on a "tobacco matter" in an unrelated case should have recused himself even though he did not take part in writing the brief.
Given these standards, do any of the reaonable people out there have "significant doubt" as to the judge's lack of impartiality?
Here's to hoping!
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
I did a quick search on Google (only because it is my favourite search engine) and found links to webpages that (no surprise) contained links to the DeCSS code. I managed to download that code, then deleted it (because I have no particular use for it). I am sure that the same search on any of the other search engines on the web would produce similar results, so I am not singling Google out here.
Does this mean that Google now has to remove keywords or links selectively because the information they are focuses on might violate some ignorant US legal ruling?
If so then this ruling cannot stand or the entire web will come crashing down around Kaplan's ears.
Looks like Roy Rogers was right when he said "This country has the best politicians money can buy". It also ooks like the only reason that Justice is blind is because it has its head up its ass.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Judge Lewis Kaplan, Memorandum Opinion granting the MPAA's motion to enjoin the publication of the DeCSS source code on the Internet. [There was a time when judges were appointed on the basis of fairness and intellect. I guess those times have passed.]
... or it might not be, but it perhaps it could be turned to some advantage?
You see, my understanding was that they KNEW they were probably going to lose with Kaplan, and were prepared to take this higher up. Banning linking is somewhat silly; and perhaps the more silly things there are in the rulling, the more likely it will be found wanting and overturned.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Personally, I don't see how I higher court could up-hold this. The analogy that the MPAA president made about driving somone to commit a crime is way off, this is more like driving someone to the library, where they get a book on, let's say, circumventing alarm systems. Now if that person goes and uses that book for illegal purposes, is it the driver's fault? A DVD is copyable, although not in its native digital format, so their conclusion is way off. I have a professional video capture board, I can, and have, fed the outputs of my DVD player into the capture board, and produced a rather large movie file. Now that it is in a digital format, further copies will not degrade, so the only loss of quality I suffered was the initial copy (and that loss came from the fact that it was an analog signal output from the DVD and input on the capture card). Does that make my capture board illegal? What about any site that links to a site selling the capture board? What about my professional studio DVD rack with digital outputs, and my Video Workstation with digital inputs? Are they now illegal seeing as I could make a perfect digital copy?
Now, there may also be a way around this precedent. What if Site A links to a site containing the first line of code (@ Site B), and site B links to a site with the second (namely site C, and so on), and site C's page with the second line of code links to site D with a similar setup and the third line of code, and D links back to A who has the fourth and a link to B (again) who now shows the fifth, and so on. Would this "distributed" link also be illeagle, considering no one site is displaying or has the entire code? Just an idea....
TheOneAndOnly
"God is REAL
So let's say all of those websites out there that give detailed descriptions of illegal substances such as drugs, hard drugs. Now, not only do these sites give detail descriptions, they also display how it's done, and the effects that it may or may not cause. Now, i don't know about most people, but there are a lot of people out there that use these sites to read up on any drug that they may do....just because there is a website that exists about a certain drug, doesn't force the user to do it, the user was going to do it anyways, at least now they're more informed on it, and know how to treat it, therefore it could hopefully prevent overdoses, or even deter people from trying it. So the question is, if i'm running a website, for example, that is a help site for people who do drugs, and i link to websites that give detailed descriptions of illegal drugs, is that illegal? The intent is not to persuade people into doing it, but to give them information on it. It's like parents with talking about sex with their children, they know they're going to do it, and they have no way to stop it, so they talk to them about 'safe' sex. You can't stop anyone from doing anything that they want to, you can just inform them on how to go about it safely, and show them the consequences of their actions. So should my drug-help site be illegal? Illegal drugs are obviously illegal, or would they say "hey, this is for legitamite reasons, we can't ban this" but where does that line end? The internet should be free, and the only laws that should be in place are laws that directly protect each user from REAL LIFE harm.
tourettes
Well ladies and laddies,
:)
My DeCSS T-shirt arrived at my door-step this afternoon. This afternoon is AFTER the Kaplan ruling. The parcel came complete with a printout of the complete DeCSS source on paper (nice touch). It arrived, courtesy of the U.S. Postal Services Priority Mail option. Another nice touch. Thank you Copyleft.
The parcel clearly stated on the label, that it originated at Copyleft - a known named defendant in the DeCSS case.
So my question is this: Is the Federal Government in violation of the DMCA/Kaplan Ruling, by not only permitting the banned code's distribution, but also by contributing to it?
Perhaps, just to be on the safe side, they should open all correspondence, just to make sure that no DeCSS source code, or references to it are contained therein?
BTW: The shirt is sharp. High quality cotton, very legible, crisp printing. Get yours TODAY - before they're sold out, intercepted, burned or otherwise unavailable. Get a few - get one for Mom, Dad, your friends.. Spread the disease. They can't jail us all.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Congres desided that you yanks shouldn't have freedum of speach anymore. Read The DMCA.
This case is going to the apeals court.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
...those I'm with stupid ----> t-shirts?
Judge J. Mendlink (no joke, folks. SML) waived the arguments, stating, that if PCM, doesn't want others to use their information, that they should not put it on internet for free. He also considered it doubtful, that the newspapers in question actually incurred damage.
Funnily enough, normally internet-savvy journalist Francisco van Jole, who has been on the internet about since the start of last September (which was the '93 one, as we all know. SML.), predicted the imminent death of content on the internet.
Anyone with time and language skill is invited to translate the actual article or articles, via kranten.com or directly from for instance de Volkskrant or de NRC, the best two national newspapers as far as I can tell, with preference to the latter. Both are actually published by PCM. Though only de Volkskrant probably has van Jole's actual words.
De Volkskrant also ran another story on "Ever more Merkins in Dutch ICT". Interesting, but I've got no time to tell ya about it.
Stefan (using my initials SML for editorial comments above).
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
Strictly speaking, hyperlinks never actually "link" you anywhere. Once the document containing the hyperlink is received, the server at the source address has no way of knowing what you do with it. The any document the link targets must be specifically requested by your browser (in effect, yourself) via GET command. Any talk of "electronically transporting" users is pure nonsense.
So they get more lawsuites. All they do is trin more lawyers ( well the universities anyway ).
As for this ruling in particular. Enforcing it against every web site wasn't the point. Not by a long shot. If it was they wold have picked a site at randum.
They chose 2600 because as far as US courts are concerned they are the least liked site in existance. 2600 protested Kevin Mitnic's "pree trial sentence" for all the years that it ran. They post stroies about stuff that old men ( I.e. most judges ) are scared of.
The point was to creat precedent so that if some company desides to build a Linux set top box with a DVD player built in, they can be sued sucesfully for using this code or any other DVD driver that they didn't pay the DVD-CCA for.
"His talents as a general lie in his ability to chuse incompetent oponents"
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Can someone please define exactly a Hyperlink is? By whose standard do we use? The W3C? As defined in the patent? When someone mentions a hyperlink to me, I'm thinking text or an image within an anchor tag. In following the letter of the law, not spirit, you can place scripting on text so when you onclick it the value of the location (url) will change. Would this be a violation of the ruling? How about adding a button that when clicked would take the browser to a different url? Is this considered hyperlinking?
Power corrupts... absolute power is kinda neat!
Sorry, the Football contains no big red button.
It contains codewords, ciphers and/or other text messages that the Prez tells the guys who DO have the buttons that it is time for THEM to open THEIR safes and pull out THEIR codes and turn their keys, telling the computers to tell the missles to launch...
No single button, a chain of command with people in it.
That said, mechanisms and people are both fallible.
I for one hope we never have to test just how fallible they are, one way or another it would be a VERY BAD DAY.
-cajun
Judge Kaplin wrote: "In an era in which the transmission of computer viruses--which, like DeCSS, are simply computer code and thus to some degree expressive--can disable systems upon which the nation depends and in which other computer code also is capable of inflicting other harm, society must be able to regulate the use and dissemination of code in appropriate circumstances. The Constitution, after all, is a framework for building a just and democratic society. It is not a suicide pact."
This sounds like the same language the Chinese government uses when they justify their own human rights violations. They go, "these students, in their attempts to blah-blah, are threatening the stability of China, and are therefore a threat to China's Billion citizens..."
Also, when he says, "on which the nation depends...," what is he referring to? Is he referring to how we depend on computers to make money? How we depend on computers to keep the trans-national corporations rich (the ones that give all that money to Democrats and Republicans), or how we use computers as a medium for free speech?
Is he therefore saying that our use of computers to generate capital is more important than our use of computers for the free exchange of information?
If we have to choose between the loss of intellectual property rights and the loss of freedom of speech, the former is obviously the one to go.
If a pickpocket meets the Buddha, all he will see is the Buddha's pockets.
It seems to me that all this is heading towards a world where everything is illegal and the powerholders can choose to attack whoever they like because everyone is guilty. If linking to illegal material is illegal then nearly every web site is illegal so the MAN will be able to single any webmaster they want out for persecution.
These kinds of laws really bother me because they put too much discretion in the hands of the police/prosecuter If laws are more careful then much fewer people are guilty and only the deserving are prosected.
If you assume that using DeCSS as a tool to help copy a DVD is a crime, then this analogy is still wrong. What he is doing is equivalent to giving somebody directions on how to get to a store where they sell lock picks. Now, if somebody uses the picks to break into a house, is the guy who gave directions on where to get the picks liable? Is the guy who sold the picks liable? So why on God's green (and blue) earth is Eric Corley being held responsible for a similar act?!?
*sigh*
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
...is it still legal to link to a site that links to a DeCSS site? Such as this?
MR. KATZ: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Your clients are not being sued for infringement of copyright. They're being sued for violation of Section 1201. Right?
MS. GROSS: But 1201 is designed to protect copyrighted work.
THE COURT: Maybe so, but it's not infringement of copyright. Isn't that true, counsel?
It's like the Marx brothers in that transcript! In case you missed it, here's Goldstein's response to it.
J
Anybody remember those research results telling that Internet is less than 20 (I think it was about 16 or sth.) clicks wide. (Any site is reachable with less than 20 clicks)
As long as most of the world does not see things like the perverted US legal system does, there will always be some short path to DeCSS (or what ever).
How will the court decide wheter some link to a page linking to (repeat N times) illegal material was an accident and not a knowingly committed crime.
Maybe the code could be put behind a chain of links so that only the first link would be in US and the rest of the chain would reside in other more enlightened countries.
Then maybe a special method could be implemented in browser, that follows the chain of links one after another. The browser could pick the correct following links by some unrelated key word like css_sucks or by using some smart heuristics.
Picture clouds of documents containing descriptively named links hosted in some nice litle country. These documents could serve as hubs for personal web crawlers searching for the information the user wants.
Pete
heh
g
If he did overturn it, his head would be where his ass now is, and vice-versa. The ruling it remains the same, only the orifice has changed.
in a strongly worded statement earlier this summer, MPAA president Jack Valenti made it clear where he stood: "(2600 publisher Eric Corley) is transporting individuals electronically to locations in order to facilitate the illegal copying of DVDs. His behavior is analogous to driving someone to a home so that they may burglarize the home." </quoteArticle>
Does this mean that driving people to houses sould be illigal, just in case they were to burgle the house?
vw_bob
In a way, programming is building. So a virus that could blow up somebody's computer is like building a bomb. Posting such a virus would be like distributing bombs.
I can understand why people would feel justified in banning people's ability to post to such a virus.
If a pickpocket meets the Buddha, all he will see is the Buddha's pockets.
Except, in this case, even telling (linking) them where to go is illegal too.
Is'nt it about time we put a stop to this, a US judge applys a ruling that affects internet users world wide and I am expected abide by it? It is rather obvious that the only concern in this case is looking after the revenue stream of existing business interests whatever happened to putting out the best product and competing in the open market. My concern is not Napster or similar services but that I see these and similar judical rulings as attempts at censorship and control of my rights to use the web *freely* Now if every concerned net user donated $1 US to a fighting fund and Judge Kaplan, the RIAA, and any big business inteests or US congressman were *personally *sued would'nt the boot be on the other foot :-)
How about it Slashdot people will you donate $1.00
to a fund to oppose unwarrented control of net use?
Would we need to form a charitable trust with non
payed volunteers to administer this? Or how about
an automatic $1.00 per month from each donor :-)
Imagine the clout of 500,000 donors each month
funds left over after we have freed the net could go to open source software development or feeding the
hungry.
Ok, here's a good one ;-)
Find someone on the internet to go into this deal with you. Have them use the internet (mapit/yahoo) to find directions to your house. Have them steal your TV, they go to jail for a month, minor fines.
So now that Mapit/Yahoo have provided a way to break into your house, sue Yahoo/Mapit for 2 million dollars. Split the millions, be happy. Get rid of dumb laws.
A moronic decision of this calibre leads me to believe that hizzoner is probably on the take.MPAA is probably setting up his retirement acct.What "honorable"reason could there be to set such precedent and invite the contempt of his judicial peers?$Good old fashioned money$
Many make the serious mistake of believing that judge is a special position.Most of the time it turns out to be a shitty lawyer who couldnt cut it in a law firm or some disillusioned law grad whose daddy has a little influence.
In my own city all city officials,cops and judges were given the MMPI(Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory)a widely standardized test for weeding out the freaks and psychos.While it's
not a pass/fail sort of test it does reveal social,psychological and character deviance as well as strength.Only half the city officials were
worthy of their positions,5% of cops and 0.0%of judges.Not that its here or there but nothing was ever done about these test results they were merely "put on file".
I guess in the end my point is:Don't expect justice from anywhere but your own hands.Don't misplace your respect on these fools.Y'know if you took all the lawyers from everywhere in the world,placed them in a line and marched them into the ocean,it would be a good start.
IANALAIYCMOIBYA(I am not a lawyer and if you call me one I'll beat your ass)
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
It seems to me that these laws don't really threaten anyone. They are primarily knee-jerk reactions by the legal community that doesn't have a clue about (relatively) new technology. In time, we'll look back and laugh at the idiot judge who made hyperlinking illegal.
Now what we should *really* worry about is the nature of fair-use in copyright laws. I don't know about anyone else, but I really, really don't want to be sitting around 5 years from now paying out of my ass to watch TV, listen to the radio or look at a webpage. It scares me that all new technology is in the hands of big companies that want to separate me from my money long before they make any significant contribution to society.
Somehow I think David Therou (sp?) is laughing at us.
This ruling is soooo boneheaded that either Kaplan is one helluva stupid SOB or there was some money exchanged behind ppl;s backs. Either way, this disqualifies Kaplan from being a judge and to prevent his stupidity or whatever from rearing its ugly head in the future, he should be removed. Is there any mechanism in the US court system to review these things and where applicable take further action???
#############################################
# exoduz : escape while you can.
#############################################
--
# I have no brain
You'd think these guys could afford a proof reader :-)
-pf
Make affiliate bucks
I've seen a couple people on Slashdot who use a link to DeCSS as their sig. According to this ruling, who is breaking the law in this case? Slashdot, or the author of the comment?
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
But I wonder if the average American really understands what's going on. What we need is a TELEVISED DEBATE on N-B-freakin-C between the MPAA and the folks over at 2600.... which might happen as soon as I can motivate these pigs to fly outta my a$$.
Kevlar Boxers...Because cajones aren't bulletproof
... so I guess it's still okay... :)
http://www. cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/08/23/decss.part2.idg/ index.html
Scroll down to the links at the bottom... it links to http://www.zpok.demon.co.uk/decss/.
The situation has become totally ridiculous. There's an old quote about how "private property" was invented the day an ape stuck a fence around a field, called it "his", and all the other apes believed him.
While we do live on a "small planet", with limited land resources, intellectual "property" is no such "thing". You can't try to apply the laws of the material world to the mental world. They two are different domains. They have different properties. They cannot be treated the same way.
Unlike a material object, an idea has no physical location. It transcends space and time. Ideas are a wonderful opportunity for people to give to the world in a manner that does not detract from themselves. If I give you my dinner, I may go hungry, but if I share my idea, we _both_ benefit (if it's a good one).
We are at a point where the powers that be would have us take "memory eraser" pills when we have finished watching a concert, so that we are not "stealing" memories of their IP --- (I submit this silly analogy as a homage to all the other silly analogies being spouted by highly paid, so called, "intelligent" individuals).
Unfortunately DVD is making it's way into the consumer mainstream.... seductively playing on the new entertainment tech appeal to the masses. But thanks to the discussions on /. I for one will at least be avoiding the stuff. Heck, I don't read enough fiction. Maybe I'll just read more books instead.
Re. the statement about companies protecting their "revenue stream": your services are no longer needed. Thanks, it's been great doing business with you, the music distributors (you know who you are), but I am not able to obtain music quite easily without your help. So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Thank you!
While I can't host it on Napster, may I place it on my personal homepage (not my website above - I am trying to keep my "politics" away from that)? I know the code it GPL'd, but your work is copyrighted - you have given permission to distribute - maybe a link back to your page. Wow... I guess I could do both, since you are giving permission implicitly by offering it on the net...
Once again, thank you! More chaffe - yay!
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
This ruling is issued by a Federal District Court (Southern District of New York). It has very little value as legal precedent (many of these cases don't even get published anymore, although this one probably will, especially when it gets appealed). It really only applies as binding "law" to the litigants before the court (MPAA and 2600, plus other named defendants), and possibly by extension to anyone else subject to jurisdiction in the S.D.N.Y. doing the same things (assuming the Court pays attention to its own rulings later on down the line). If somebody else in another jurisdiction upsets the MPAA, they have to bring another lawsuit in that jurisdiction; they can point to this case as "res judicata" (things decided already) but the judge is pretty free to ignore it, especially if the facts differ. Stuff like this happens all the time; different state & federal courts disagree, leading to "splits" in authority between different Circuits (the next level up from District court); often, the Supreme Court decides to weigh in, to make things uniform nationwide again.
My 2 cents: if this upsets you, try "civil disobedience" - post your own links to DeCSS and other "banned" stuff everywhere you can (that is, your own websites - no advocacy for crackers/defacers intended). Keep the suits and lawyers so busy, they lose sight of the bottom line and start losing $$$. Use massive, peaceful protest to help change the current system. Examples: Ghandi, MLK, and now Emmanuel Goldstein?
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
Note to Moderators:
Go ahead, mod this down! You will be just censoring FREE SPEECH like the MPAA. Do them the favour....
I would like to know how many search engines are linking to slashdot? Well... after this message, they are all definately performing illegal acts...
For your viewing pleasure. Please distribute.
Also (off topic), I would like sony to try and block this:
http://www.gnutellanews.com
Want to decode DVDs?
Compile this:
-----
/* decrypt.c */
unsigned int CSStab0[11]={5,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4};
unsigned char CSStab1[256]=
{
0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x7e
0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e
0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1a
0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x98
0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7c
0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x9c
0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x18
0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a
0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x1e
0xb3,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe
0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a
0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0xf8
0x5d,0x1d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c
0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc
0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x78
0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa
};
unsigned char CSStab2[256]=
{
0x00,0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x09,0x08
0x12,0x13,0x10,0x11,0x16,0x17,0x14,0x15,0x1b,0x1a
0x24,0x25,0x26,0x27,0x20,0x21,0x22,0x23,0x2d,0x2c
0x36,0x37,0x34,0x35,0x32,0x33,0x30,0x31,0x3f,0x3e
0x49,0x48,0x4b,0x4a,0x4d,0x4c,0x4f,0x4e,0x40,0x41
0x5b,0x5a,0x59,0x58,0x5f,0x5e,0x5d,0x5c,0x52,0x53
0x6d,0x6c,0x6f,0x6e,0x69,0x68,0x6b,0x6a,0x64,0x65
0x7f,0x7e,0x7d,0x7c,0x7b,0x7a,0x79,0x78,0x76,0x77
0x92,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x96,0x97,0x94,0x95,0x9b,0x9a
0x80,0x81,0x82,0x83,0x84,0x85,0x86,0x87,0x89,0x88
0xb6,0xb7,0xb4,0xb5,0xb2,0xb3,0xb0,0xb1,0xbf,0xbe
0xa4,0xa5,0xa6,0xa7,0xa0,0xa1,0xa2,0xa3,0xad,0xac
0xdb,0xda,0xd9,0xd8,0xdf,0xde,0xdd,0xdc,0xd2,0xd3
0xc9,0xc8,0xcb,0xca,0xcd,0xcc,0xcf,0xce,0xc0,0xc1
0xff,0xfe,0xfd,0xfc,0xfb,0xfa,0xf9,0xf8,0xf6,0xf7
0xed,0xec,0xef,0xee,0xe9,0xe8,0xeb,0xea,0xe4,0xe5
};
unsigned char CSStab3[512]=
{
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
};
unsigned char CSStab4[256]=
{
0x00,0x80,0x40,0xc0,0x20,0xa0,0x60,0xe0,0x10,0x90
0x08,0x88,0x48,0xc8,0x28,0xa8,0x68,0xe8,0x18,0x98
0x04,0x84,0x44,0xc4,0x24,0xa4,0x64,0xe4,0x14,0x94
0x0c,0x8c,0x4c,0xcc,0x2c,0xac,0x6c,0xec,0x1c,0x9c
0x02,0x82,0x42,0xc2,0x22,0xa2,0x62,0xe2,0x12,0x92
0x0a,0x8a,0x4a,0xca,0x2a,0xaa,0x6a,0xea,0x1a,0x9a
0x06,0x86,0x46,0xc6,0x26,0xa6,0x66,0xe6,0x16,0x96
0x0e,0x8e,0x4e,0xce,0x2e,0xae,0x6e,0xee,0x1e,0x9e
0x01,0x81,0x41,0xc1,0x21,0xa1,0x61,0xe1,0x11,0x91
0x09,0x89,0x49,0xc9,0x29,0xa9,0x69,0xe9,0x19,0x99
0x05,0x85,0x45,0xc5,0x25,0xa5,0x65,0xe5,0x15,0x95
0x0d,0x8d,0x4d,0xcd,0x2d,0xad,0x6d,0xed,0x1d,0x9d
0x03,0x83,0x43,0xc3,0x23,0xa3,0x63,0xe3,0x13,0x93
0x0b,0x8b,0x4b,0xcb,0x2b,0xab,0x6b,0xeb,0x1b,0x9b
0x07,0x87,0x47,0xc7,0x27,0xa7,0x67,0xe7,0x17,0x97
0x0f,0x8f,0x4f,0xcf,0x2f,0xaf,0x6f,0xef,0x1f,0x9f
};
unsigned char CSStab5[256]=
{
0xff,0x7f,0xbf,0x3f,0xdf,0x5f,0x9f,0x1f,0xef,0x6f
0xf7,0x77,0xb7,0x37,0xd7,0x57,0x97,0x17,0xe7,0x67
0xfb,0x7b,0xbb,0x3b,0xdb,0x5b,0x9b,0x1b,0xeb,0x6b
0xf3,0x73,0xb3,0x33,0xd3,0x53,0x93,0x13,0xe3,0x63
0xfd,0x7d,0xbd,0x3d,0xdd,0x5d,0x9d,0x1d,0xed,0x6d
0xf5,0x75,0xb5,0x35,0xd5,0x55,0x95,0x15,0xe5,0x65
0xf9,0x79,0xb9,0x39,0xd9,0x59,0x99,0x19,0xe9,0x69
0xf1,0x71,0xb1,0x31,0xd1,0x51,0x91,0x11,0xe1,0x61
0xfe,0x7e,0xbe,0x3e,0xde,0x5e,0x9e,0x1e,0xee,0x6e
0xf6,0x76,0xb6,0x36,0xd6,0x56,0x96,0x16,0xe6,0x66
0xfa,0x7a,0xba,0x3a,0xda,0x5a,0x9a,0x1a,0xea,0x6a
0xf2,0x72,0xb2,0x32,0xd2,0x52,0x92,0x12,0xe2,0x62
0xfc,0x7c,0xbc,0x3c,0xdc,0x5c,0x9c,0x1c,0xec,0x6c
0xf4,0x74,0xb4,0x34,0xd4,0x54,0x94,0x14,0xe4,0x64
0xf8,0x78,0xb8,0x38,0xd8,0x58,0x98,0x18,0xe8,0x68
0xf0,0x70,0xb0,0x30,0xd0,0x50,0x90,0x10,0xe0,0x60
};
void CSSdescramble(unsigned char *sec,unsigned char *key)
{
unsigned int t1,t2,t3,t4,t5,t6;
unsigned char *end=sec+0x800;
t1=key[0]^sec[0x54]|0x100;
t2=key[1]^sec[0x55];
t3=(*((unsigned int *)(key+2)))^(*((unsigned int *)(sec+0x56)));
t4=t3
t3=t3*2+8-t4;
sec+=0x80;
t5=0;
while(sec!=end)
{
t4=CSStab2[t2]^CSStab3[t1];
t2=t1>>1;
t1=((t1&1)>3)^t3)>>1)^t3)>>8)^t3)>>5)
t3=(t3>=8;
}
}
void CSStitlekey1(unsigned char *key,unsigned char *im)
{
unsigned int t1,t2,t3,t4,t5,t6;
unsigned char k[5];
int i;
t1=im[0]|0x100;
t2=im[1];
t3=*((unsigned int *)(im+2));
t4=t3
t3=t3*2+8-t4;
t5=0;
for(i=0;i>1;
t1=((t1&1)>3)^t3)>>1)^t3)>>8)^t3)>>5)
t3=(t3>=8;
}
for(i=9;i>=0;i--)
key[CSStab0[i+1]]=k[CSStab0[i+1]]^CSStab1[key[CSS
}
void CSStitlekey2(unsigned char *key,unsigned char *im)
{
unsigned int t1,t2,t3,t4,t5,t6;
unsigned char k[5];
int i;
t1=im[0]|0x100;
t2=im[1];
t3=*((unsigned int *)(im+2));
t4=t3
t3=t3*2+8-t4;
t5=0;
for(i=0;i>1;
t1=((t1&1)>3)^t3)>>1)^t3)>>8)^t3)>>5)
t3=(t3>=8;
}
for(i=9;i>=0;i--)
key[CSStab0[i+1]]=k[CSStab0[i+1]]^CSStab1[key[CSS
}
void CSSdecrypttitlekey(unsigned char *tkey,unsigned char *dkey)
{
int i;
unsigned char im1[6];
unsigned char im2[6]={0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0,0x00};
for(i=0;i6;i++)
im1[i]=dkey[i];
CSStitlekey1(im1,im2);
CSStitlekey2(tkey,im1);
}
/* End decrypt.c */
-------
This
...should shampoo my crotch.
DeCSS can be obtained, for example, here, but there is a list of mirrors here.
I don't mind if what I have written is illegal. I have freedom of speech.
Does this mean that your telemarketer could use your phone number as long as a computer didn't dial the number for him?
Stupid.
---
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
but I am not able to obtain music quite easily without your help
but I am now able to obtain music quite easily without your help
Arghhh, f*****g typo, my fingers have their own sence of humour....
I'm seeing a disturbing trend in America lately, and that is the amount of ill will, rancor, and all-out hatred that is being directed at successful and profitable corporations. These corporations, which are directly responsible for the vibrant economy and standard of living we enjoy today, are continually finding themselves the targets of anti-business leftists. You want examples? That's easy. How about Al "Internet" Gore's recent attacks on the oil companies or the drug companies? Sure, he leaves out the fact that if it weren't for these companies we would be riding bicycles around and dying at age 40, but what the hell .. it's "in vogue" for liberals to attack successful corporations and rich people, so let's cheer Gore on .. rah, rah, rah!
.. let's look past the obvious and take the opportunity to attack the corporations. That "tiny" salary pays for food that keeps the child alive, but let's ignore the fact that companies like Nike are working hard to feed poor children and let's attack them instead. Yeah, what a great idea.
.. but it's not going to happen. When G. W. Bush takes office, I'll bet a lot of Microsoft's "problems" will go away. Sayonara, Al. I'm sick of you all.
Nobody is saying that prescription drugs are cheap, but if Gore thinks that the kind of research that will cure cancer can be done for free, he's on some drugs of his own! And as far as the oil companies are concerned, if they saw an opportunity to increase their profits in the Midwest for a while, who is the government to say any different? Socialists like Gore think that the government should step in and regulate all prices. Uh uh, Al. Ain't gonna happen. The purpose of business is to turn a profit. Sorry if that offends leftists, but profit is why we are where we are today.
I'm sick of liberals whining about "sweat shops" and how children in Third World countries are being paid a dollar a day to put together sneakers for ten hours straight. Of course, if it wasn't for that dollar, the child would probably just curl up in a ball and die, but hey
And most of all, I'm sick of the leftist attack on Microsoft! This is the most transparent leftist interventionist government intrusion on behalf of angry and befuddled competitors in our country's history! Guess what, folks, if you can't compete, you don't deserve to be in business. Socialists think they can rely on a jack-booted government to kill off successful corporations. Sad, really
The funny thing is, I can still go to Wall St. and choose between 5 or so DVD street dealers.
At $10 a DVD, what a wholesale bargain.
Why don't they sue Mayor Guliani for aiding and abetting blatant criminal activity?
The article mentioned Microsoft's case against Slashdot. What ever became of that case?
It has been said that there needs to be a revolution every ten years in order to keep the government honest. I think we're long overdue.
Actually it was said by that dead, white, male, slaveowner, Thomas Jefferson. You know: The guy who planted those paper timebombs that ended up freeing the slaves and giving women the vote.
The time he suggested was twenty years, and the quote was to the effect of ~heaven forbid that [the US] ever go twenty years without a revolution~
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
<form name="decss" method="post" action="http://decssmirror.org/decss.html">
<input type="submit" value="Go to decss mirror">
</form>
Rich
Did he just make the whole point of hypertext illegal?
I think he made footnotes (to "illegal information") illegal.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So I've been reading about all this linking crap, and I am pissed off. I call the MPAA (818-995-6600) on my way home from work today.
Me: I'd like to speak to someone about the DeCSS litigation.
MPAA: May I take your name and number and have them call you back?
Me. No. I would like to talk to someone now.
(I was then transferred to someone who kept me on spearkerphone)
MPAA: Go ahead.
Me: I would like to talk to someone about the DeCSS litigation.
MPAA: Go ahead.
Me: Is it legal for me to play DVD's on my linux laptop using DeCSS.
MPAA: I will accept that.
Me: I'm not looking for your acceptance, I'm asking you a yes or no question.
MPAA: I'm not giving away legal advice, I will accept that statement.
Me: So it is legal for me to play DVD's on my Linux laptop using DeCSS?
MPAA: Ok.
Me: So why did 2600.com have to take down the links?
MPAA: (proudly) Because we won!
Me: But what is the difference?
MPAA: YOu're playing a DVD versus distributing and/or harboring distributing (or some legal phrase)
Me. But it's okay to play my DVD's on my Win98 laptop?
MPAA: Yes.
Me: What's the difference?
MPAA: You have both operating systems?
Me: Yeah, I can dual boot to Linux-Mandrake 6.1 or Win98.
MPAA: So you can legally watch DVD's under Windows?
Me: Yes
MPAA: What, does it hurt you to switch to Windows?
Me: No, I PREFER Linux.
MPAA: (loudly and agitatedly) You have nothing better to do than to complain? YOu can watch them legally and you're calling me complaining? Who do you represent?
Me: (looking around, and seeing only myself) Me, a consumer.
MPAA: (sound of arguing)
Me: (sound of arguing)
MPAA: You're a whiny complainer!
Me: (ticked off that a company has offended its consumer) go read slashdot, buddy.
MPAA: You don't have what it takes to write slashdot with "I'm a whiny complainer!"
Me: Yes I do. Go read it in 30 minutes.
You can ban the MPAA if you don't like their treatment of the DeCSS issue. You can ban them if you don't like their treatment of scour TV. You can ban them if you don't like the color shoes they wear.
Companies that treat their consumers like that, however, effectively ban themselves.
Signed,
A Whiny Complainer who prefers to use Linux instead of Windows.
What if someone posted only a portion of the DeCSS code on their site, and someone else posted another portion on their site, and a third person posted a program that would "combine" the two portions together? Could that be construed as "linking" under the ruling? I think people need to really think about how to defeat the intent of the ruling without violating the letter. The problem is not with the law it is with the solutions around the law.
One final solution is to force the repeal of the ruling by making it unenforcable; civil disobedience is an option.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Hon. Lewis A. KAPLAN
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1310
New York, New York 10007-1312
(212) 805-0216
Courtroom 12D
Deputy (212) 805-0104
Individual Practices - 9/99
Lewis Kaplan
173 Riverside Dr
New York , NY (212)595-4688
Lewis Kaplan
173 Riverside Dr
New York , NY (212)724-5283
Please! take a moment to let him know how you feel about his mockery of the US legal system.
Link to a site that links to DeCSS?
Link to a site that links to DeCSS?
Link to a search results page for "DeCSS"?
Link to a photograph of a t-shirt with DeCSS on it?
I'm Abram Bender. You're not.
Instead of illegally linking to something like http://24.114.168.235/public/css.htm why not just link to Google's search for this page at m /search?q=http%3A%2F%2F24.114.168.235%2F public%2Fcss.htm&hl=en&safe=o ff&btnG=Google+Search</a> or is linking to Google illegal too?
You know, a search engine that just provides one link when given a search on a link would be cool, but at least Google here gives you a whole bunch of related links. 38 links for the above, in fact.
Don't buy films and cds from america - buy them from china or what have you. Spend your entertainment dollars elsewhere. The MPAA and RIAA can't make money off of that, and you can still watch Jacky Chan and anime. Remember - Don't buy American
Here is my mirror:
DeCSS
Since i'm in England Judge thicko's lack of judgement can't hurt me.
Pity really i'm lisiting to the Clashes, 'guns of Brixton' right now and getting worked up for fighting off police.
Takes me back to my teenage years.
Any other stuff i should be mirroring?
sig:
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
Yeah, but Yahoo links to Slashdot which links to which might link to something which might link to DeCSS...at what point does it become illegal? It's just stupid.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Reality corrupted. Reboot universe? (Y/N)
y-e-s "return"
--
303infinity Rocks, buy their CD's.
But it needs to be kept in mind that they are useful only in conveying similarities, and that non-similarites are to be ignored as they *break* the original point.
So any anologies used to describe linking needs to talk about references, degrees of separation, information vs meta-information, and such. Analogies to this could be:
Card catalogues in libraries ~= links
Footnotes ~= links
Instructions ~= links
But they all break too, and that's important. Card catalogues are protected because *libraries* are protected under free speech and other such stuff. Well, at least until libraries start hosting mp3 libraries!
Footnotes break because they don't actually *give* you the material, the user has to make the choice to look for and read it, whereas Internet wise a link is no different than the actual text you're link connects to for, insofar as clicking a link vs scrolling a bar. is difficult.
Instructions break down because instructions have to, usually, be followed *correctly* whereas a link has no such difficulty. A similar difficult instruction to 'clicking the link' would be, perhaps, 'open the book', 'look around', 'remove the beaker', or 'turn on the oven'. So there is some amount of effort and difficulty involved.
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
Below is a letter I've sent to all of my congressman. Please feel free to use as your own if you feel the same way I do:
Dear Congressperson,
I write to you this letter through actual tears of distress at the disheartening developments and outcomes of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Never in my life have I see a single piece of legislation give so much power to corporations at the expense of consumer rights and individual liberties. Of all the amendments in our Bill Of Rights, one of them has for most stood out as paramount, and for good reason it is the First Amendment. Our founding fathers did not make it the 3rd, 6th or the 10th. In the most recent case, Judge Kaplan in the DeCSS vs. MPAA trial, ruled that not only was source code (which can be written on a T-shirt) not speech, but that even linking or directing to people to such code is also illegal!
I'm not sure what I am asking you do, only that if don't already understand the chilling implications of these trends, please do so at once. Since it was Congress who passed this draconian piece of legislation, it is Congress who must overturn it. I want to start seeing legislation that is pro-consumer first, and pro-corporation second. One that protects the liberties and freedoms of individuals against over-zealous corporate interests.
To anyone who knows anything about the use and programming of computers, source code is definitely speech. Computer networks are the fastest-growing medium of public and private expression; our rights and liberties, as we engage in commerce and in other forms of discourse via that medium are protected by instructions to computers. Source code is the means by which these instructions are expressed in ways that people can examine and understand.
On the Internet, there can be no genuine freedom of speech unless source code is a protected form of speech. This principle is attacked, however, by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in his ruling that, "society must be able to regulate the use and dissemination of code." The judge then enjoined Eric Corley, publisher of 2600 magazine, from assisting his readers from even linking to the code that unlocks DVD content. My head is spinning from the implications of all this. No longer is the act of a crime a crime, but discussing it or pointing to people who do is also now criminal. The current anti-piracy/pro-intellectual property laws are dangerously moving in that direction. No longer are the people doing the pirating liable, but any technology like Napster or Gnutella which makes it possible is also illegal. This same logic could just as easily be applied to the internet itself. It's equivalent to making cars illegal because they allow people to conduct bank robberies or kidnappings. Unless I am corrected, technology has never been the culprit, only the user of such technology is criminal. In a murder trial we don't hold the knife trial, only the user of it. But now with the help of statutes in the DMCA, people like the MPAA and RIAA are trying to outlaw any and all technology that can be used to facilitate piracy. If they get their way, we might as well say goodbye to the PC, the fax machine, the telephone, the internet, Napster, Gnutella, and just about any other new technology that doesn't give them complete control over all its content. This a chilling prospect indeed. Imagine everything we say, do and watch through media is tightly controlled, filtered and censored through power of consolidated corporate interests.
Dangerously, companies are already discussing plans to re-vamp the whole array of consumer computer products and internet protocols to do exactly this. Imagine buying your new computer with a label on it saying, "Do not open or tamper with under Penalty of Law". I don't know about you, but the thought of corporations forbidding individuals from producing and distributing media or building their own computers or running their own software should be completely repugnant to anyone with principles of a free society. To legally support the position that the common man is fit only for mindless consumption is a despicable point of view, and to forbid otherwise is a shocking development that speaks volumes about the perspective and motivation of modern corporations. But if the corporations do manage to create an entirely new information infrastructure, then the individual user will no longer be able to distribute their music or creative work online as they have up to now, as doing so would mean they'd be using a format easily copyable and cheaply distributed - which by definition would become outlawed if corporations get their way.
Now that duplication costs have fallen to zero thanks to the computer revolution, what you have here is nothing less than a corporate power grab attempting to create artificial scarcity where there is none, in a desperate attempt to maintain their previous monopoly of media distribution and revune streams.
Just imagine if the blacksmiths of days past were allowed to pass equivalent legislation prohibiting any technology which might circumvent their ability to make money; any transportation device not using horses now becomes illegal. It may have seemed a small sacrifice at the time to protect people's livelihood, but where would we be today without our modern transportation systems?
In the regards to the DeCSS case, the Supreme Court has already laid the foundation for reversal of this ruling, in Justice Stevens' majority opinion striking down the Communications Decency Act of 1996. That opinion described the discourse of the Internet as a "dynamic, multifaceted category of communication ... as diverse as
human thought," and included the vital statement that other cases involving other forms
of mass communication provide "no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment
scrutiny that should be applied to this medium."
Given the Supreme Court's unambiguous statement, it is shocking to consider the precedent that Judge Kaplan proposes to create. If it is unlawful to publish the means of breaking DVD encryption, then isn't it also unlawful to publish a detailed critique of any other encryption algorithm that explains its vulnerabilities?
For that matter, wouldn't this ruling hamper any form of consumer activism that independently examines the ingredients, the design or the behavior of any product whose vendors demand "trade secret" status? Sounds awfully convenient to me.
Those who approve of Kaplan's ruling assert that it merely enforces the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998; this assertion surely invites the Supreme Court's scrutiny of that law, since any U.S. copyright law must ultimately trace its authority back to language of the Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 merely authorizes Congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Copyright law is not property law, despite the attempts of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America to paint themselves as aggrieved property owners merely trying to protect what's theirs.
What's constitutional is what "promotes the progress" of creative expression. Increasingly, source code is the lingua franca of "science and the useful arts," and source code must therefore enjoy full protection against any law that abridges its freedom. This should also be extended to provide protection of technology creators to not be held liable for how some criminals decide to use it.
If you read this far, you have my deepest gratitude.
Most Respectfully,
Your name here.
www.enthea.org
Heck, they even have the complete DeCSS source code on T HEIR SERVER(thanks to their caching service :) )! And most likely more than once!!! Surely if linking to the code is illegal, posessing and distributing it must be!
Below is a letter I've sent to all of my congressman. Please feel free to use as your own if you feel the same way I do:
Dear Congressperson,
I write to you this letter through actual tears of distress at the disheartening developments and outcomes of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Never in my life have I see a single piece of legislation give so much power to corporations at the expense of consumer rights and individual liberties. Of all the amendments in our Bill Of Rights, one of them has for most stood out as paramount, and for good reason it is the First Amendment. Our founding fathers did not make it the 3rd, 6th or the 10th. In the most recent case, Judge Kaplan in the DeCSS vs. MPAA trial, ruled that not only was source code (which can be written on a T-shirt) not speech, but that even linking or directing to people to such code is also illegal!
I'm not sure what I am asking you do, only that if don't already understand the chilling implications of these trends, please do so at once. Since it was Congress who passed this draconian piece of legislation, it is Congress who must overturn it. I want to start seeing legislation that is pro-consumer first, and pro-corporation second. One that protects the liberties and freedoms of individuals against over-zealous corporate interests.
To anyone who knows anything about the use and programming of computers, source code is definitely speech. Computer networks are the fastest-growing medium of public and private expression; our rights and liberties, as we engage in commerce and in other forms of discourse via that medium are protected by instructions to computers. Source code is the means by which these instructions are expressed in ways that people can examine and understand.
On the Internet, there can be no genuine freedom of speech unless source code is a protected form of speech. This principle is attacked, however, by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in his ruling that, "society must be able to regulate the use and dissemination of code." The judge then enjoined Eric Corley, publisher of 2600 magazine, from assisting his readers from even linking to the code that unlocks DVD content. My head is spinning from the implications of all this. No longer is the act of a crime a crime, but discussing it or pointing to people who do is also now criminal. The current anti-piracy/pro-intellectual property laws are dangerously moving in that direction. No longer are the people doing the pirating liable, but any technology like Napster or Gnutella which makes it possible is also illegal. This same logic could just as easily be applied to the internet itself. It's equivalent to making cars illegal because they allow people to conduct bank robberies or kidnappings. Unless I am corrected, technology has never been the culprit, only the user of such technology is criminal. In a murder trial we don't hold the knife trial, only the user of it. But now with the help of statutes in the DMCA, people like the MPAA and RIAA are trying to outlaw any and all technology that can be used to facilitate piracy. If they get their way, we might as well say goodbye to the PC, the fax machine, the telephone, the internet, Napster, Gnutella, and just about any other new technology that doesn't give them complete control over all its content. This a chilling prospect indeed. Imagine everything we say, do and watch through media is tightly controlled, filtered and censored through power of consolidated corporate interests.
Dangerously, companies are already discussing plans to re-vamp the whole array of consumer computer products and internet protocols to do exactly this. Imagine buying your new computer with a label on it saying, "Do not open or tamper with under Penalty of Law". I don't know about you, but the thought of corporations forbidding individuals from producing and distributing media or building their own computers or running their own software should be completely repugnant to anyone with principles of a free society. To legally support the position that the common man is fit only for mindless consumption is a despicable point of view, and to forbid otherwise is a shocking development that speaks volumes about the perspective and motivation of modern corporations. But if the corporations do manage to create an entirely new information infrastructure, then the individual user will no longer be able to distribute their music or creative work online as they have up to now, as doing so would mean they'd be using a format easily copyable and cheaply distributed - which by definition would become outlawed if corporations get their way.
Now that duplication costs have fallen to zero thanks to the computer revolution, what you have here is nothing less than a corporate power grab attempting to create artificial scarcity where there is none, in a desperate attempt to maintain their previous monopoly of media distribution and revune streams.
Just imagine if the blacksmiths of days past were allowed to pass equivalent legislation prohibiting any technology which might circumvent their ability to make money; any transportation device not using horses now becomes illegal. It may have seemed a small sacrifice at the time to protect people's livelihood, but where would we be today without our modern transportation systems?
In the regards to the DeCSS case, the Supreme Court has already laid the foundation for reversal of this ruling, in Justice Stevens' majority opinion striking down the Communications Decency Act of 1996. That opinion described the discourse of the Internet as a "dynamic, multifaceted category of communication ... as diverse as
human thought," and included the vital statement that other cases involving other forms
of mass communication provide "no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment
scrutiny that should be applied to this medium."
Given the Supreme Court's unambiguous statement, it is shocking to consider the precedent that Judge Kaplan proposes to create. If it is unlawful to publish the means of breaking DVD encryption, then isn't it also unlawful to publish a detailed critique of any other encryption algorithm that explains its vulnerabilities?
For that matter, wouldn't this ruling hamper any form of consumer activism that independently examines the ingredients, the design or the behavior of any product whose vendors demand "trade secret" status? Sounds awfully convenient to me.
Those who approve of Kaplan's ruling assert that it merely enforces the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998; this assertion surely invites the Supreme Court's scrutiny of that law, since any U.S. copyright law must ultimately trace its authority back to language of the Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 merely authorizes Congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Copyright law is not property law, despite the attempts of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America to paint themselves as aggrieved property owners merely trying to protect what's theirs.
What's constitutional is what "promotes the progress" of creative expression. Increasingly, source code is the lingua franca of "science and the useful arts," and source code must therefore enjoy full protection against any law that abridges its freedom. This should also be extended to provide protection of technology creators to not be held liable for how some criminals decide to use it.
If you read this far, you have my deepest gratitude.
Most Respectfully,
Your name here.
www.enthea.org
Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. -A. Whitney Griswold(1952)
but on a more offtopic note, this fellow also said:
Could Hamlet have been written by a committee, or the Mona Lisa painted by a club? Could the New Testament have been composed as a conference report? Creative ideas do not spring from groups. They spring from individuals. The divine spark leaps from the finger of God to the finger of Adam. which IMHO doesn't completly jibe with the Linux open source ideals.
$var = STDIN;
$var =~ s/\\$//;
$var = <STDIN>
$var =~ s/\\$//;
this is slashchomp
All Corprations are chartered by the law therefore
all Corporations can have their charters removed,
(including the MPAA.
As far as I am concerned - once a corporation violates the freedoms our foreathers paid for with blood (at least in the USA)it is time to question whether or not entities like the MPAA should have the right to exist at all.
More info on this is at the link below:
http://www.poclad.org/articles.html
Post one link (inline or not) to DECSS, to a random message board, daily. Create anonymous accounts if you have to. Post the source, if you have to. Fight it! http://dvd.coolpeople.dhs.org
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
They just need to show that the information was obtained through the examination of copyrighted materials, and that this has violated copyright regulations.
In this way they can sue the people who posted the information, the people who are linking to the information, until finally the information has become so hard to find so as to be essentially non-existant, such as how Disney prevents anyone from selling or renting the allegedly racist 1946 movie Song of the South.
Today, we know you can't link to Song of the South either.
This ruling will be used to brush up history.
They are linking to DeCSS, but not with the express intention of giving people DeCSS. It's entirely automated.
I think this is the point: Kaplan says that you can be held responsable for content you link to, if you link to it solely because of that content. Google would link to sites with DeCSS regardless of whether or not they have DeCSS; hence, no liability.
Lemme get this straight.... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @07:07PM EDT (#319)
DeCSS isn't explicitly designed to copy DVDs right? All it does is decrypt the CSS encryption. The intended purpose for this as I understand it was to play DVDs on OSs like Linux that weren't equipped with the decryption algorithm to play them but still DeCSS could be used for copying. So basically DeCSS is a tool which can be used for many things, therefore the 2600 site merely linked to a tool. 2600 as far as I know never encouraged the coping of DVDs or any illegal behavior, they just said it could be done.
So according to Judge Kaplan's logic about linking if I link to a site selling crowbars I am in violation of the law because a crowbar could be used to burglarize a house or car even though burglarizing homes and cars isn't the sole use of a crowbar, I by linking am encouraging burglary?
If I'm wrong about the facts please correct me but from what I understand right now Judge Kaplan made quite a few leaps about motive of 2600 to come to his findings. If he had stuck to the facts or even had a grasp of what the facts truly were there's no way he could have come to the same conclusion without some sort of major bias against 2600.
To Anyone who wants to contact a real twit judge.. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @06:53PM EDT (#309)
I thought this info might be useful... Call him for free on your net phone!
Hon. Lewis A. KAPLAN
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1310
New York, New York 10007-1312
(212) 805-0216
Courtroom 12D
Deputy (212) 805-0104
Individual Practices - 9/99
Lewis Kaplan
173 Riverside Dr
New York , NY (212)595-4688
Lewis Kaplan
173 Riverside Dr
New York , NY (212)724-5283
Please! take a moment to let him know how you feel about his mockery of the US legal system
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @05:46PM EDT (#218)
What if
A website maintainer sets up a link to a site that is 'clean', free of whatever officially censored material, such as DeCSS.
Then the maintainer of the linked site decides to do thier civis duty and engage in civil disobedience by posting the code.
The maintainer of the linked site has no knowledge of the sites linking to him, and so cannot notify them of the illicit/banned material.
The linker, whose site now links to a site containing banned material, now is unknowingly linking to banned material.
How is liability for a site in such a situation determined? How can they reasonably be held liable for content over which they have neither control, nor a way of easily verifying as being 'clean'?
How are large sites supposed to deal with this ruling? Check the page at the end of every link every day in its entirety for any material banned by any country at any time? This is quite frankly absurd. The cost could never be shouldered, even by the MPAA, DVD-CCA, or even the court!
I suggest that we demonstrate this. If anyone has a site that is linked to in anyway by the offending organizations, please post code. If we can post code that makes folks linking to our sites in violation, demonstrate the absurdity of the ruling by showing how easily the MPAA themselves can be put in violation.
This sounds like some kind of weird 'six degrees of separation' situation. How many degrees of separation make you legal?
Ack!
Let's make thinking illegal (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @05:18PM EDT (#166)
THE FIRST 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
AS RATIFIED BY THE STATES
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These
amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,
and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the
common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
The real Anonymous Coward has Slashdot ID -1. Anyone else is an imposter.
Also got the 2600 MPAA shirt,
:) Am I automagically a defendednt in this case? What the fuck is going on?
The really cool thing is that *everyone* asks me about the shirts when I wear them. People at work, in the grocer, in the cafes, on the street - they all get the 2 minutes or less overview - and so far, all have groked the total corporate bullshit.
Kick Ass!
But I'm a bit confused about Copyleft's role in the case. How can one add defendants to a case after it has already started? Is the RIAA taking copyleft to court seperately? Or can they add random defendants to the already tried and concluded case retroactively for some indefinate time period? This was the actual case wasn't it? This wasn't just some preliminary thing? I've always assumed that if I were a defendent in some court action, I would have to be notified beforehand so that I could have a chance to defend myself. As a shirt purchaser, have I broken the law?(not that I mind breaking the law
I'm *so* confused.
- bridgette
an Openlaw post (Score:0)
... sciences"
/comments.pl in order to allow everyone to have a fair chance to post.
.. it's "in vogue" for liberals to attack successful corporations and rich people, so let's cheer Gore on .. rah, rah, rah!
.. let's look past the obvious and take the opportunity to attack the corporations. That "tiny" salary pays for food that keeps the child alive, but let's ignore the fact that companies like Nike are working hard to feed poor children and let's attack them instead. Yeah, what a great idea.
.. but it's not going to happen. When G. W. Bush takes office, I'll bet a lot of Microsoft's "problems" will go away. Sayonara, Al. I'm sick of you all.
:NextPg v:View Attachm. d:Del r:Reply j:Next ?:Hel
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @06:08PM EDT (#255)
All, an example Openlaw post on the matter. Mr Zulauf makes pointed remarks on how Kaplan has zero understanding of the open source/free software public development process. kaplan's ruling clearly undermines all such "public" tech development; he doesn't seem to have been listening when open source advocates explained what they are all about. Get angry.
sparkane
From: "John Zulauf"
To:
Subject: [dvd-discuss] Explicit prior restraint w.r.t. RE
Date sent: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:28:09 -0600
Send reply to: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Here is an example of explicit prior restraint based on content that
seems
in direct opposition to the First Amendment. I haven't seen this
covered
yet, but it seems a most egregious attack on the "freedom of the press."
Page 37 paragraph 2 of Judge Kaplan's opinion:
> First, Section 1201(f)(3) permits information acquired
> through reverse engineering to be made available to
> others only by the person who acquired the information.
> But these defendants did not do any reverse engineering.
> They simply took DeCSS off someone else's web site and
> posted it on their own.
The opinion creates a class of information which is legal only for some
subset of the population to express. Only an engineer engaged in
reverse
engineering can express the results of his or her work -- and can only do
so
directly. All hearers are prohibited from expressing this information.
Let's say that (as an extreme example), it was discovered by reverse
engineering that a TPM caused cancer (for example it silently performed
an
X-ray of the user's hand to verify identity). Only the engineer -- in
Kaplan's opinion -- would be able to provide that information. The
press
would be silenced as they did not perform the reverse engineering
themselves. In this case we have the engineer providing information that
a
TPM is badly flawed (as dangerous as cancer to the copyright holder
rights
from rantings of the MPAA). Again only the engineer him/her self can
disclose this information.
This is explictly prior restraint on non-engineers, based on the content
(reverse engineering of a TPM information) of the speak.
Wait it gets worse:
> Defendants would be in no stronger position even if they
> had authored DeCSS. The right to make the information
> available extends only to dissemination "solely for the
> purpose" of achieving interoperability as defined in the
> statute.
Not even the engineer has the right to disseminate this information in
all
cases. Also, not only the content of the expression is evaluated but the
purpose as well. How the court (aside from reading the engineer's mind)
can
know this purpose without reference to direct testimony is unknown. But
in
any case both the actual content (the reverse engineered information),
and
the political content (the purpose of the expression) are explictly used
as
a test to restrain the speak.
> It does not apply to public dissemination of means
> of circumvention, as the legislative history confirms.151
This ignores facts-in-evidence regarding the nature of Open Source
development. It is performed explictly in a public forum (and the GPL
requires this) with subsequent engineering and refinement done by other
engineers unknown and unexpected by the original author. The ONLY means
for
an open source engineer to collaborate is by definition public
dissemination. This restraint is specific to open source developers --
imposing an impossible burden on the process of reverse engineering for
one
of the most productive areas of "progress in the useful
over
the last half decade.
> These defendants, however, did not post DeCSS "solely" to
> achieve interoperabilit
Read the rest of this comment...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
COLUMN: Will the real Dick Cheney please stand up? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @06:30PM EDT (#275)
By Matt Cumming
Daily O'Collegian (Oklahoma State U.)
08/22/2000
Respond to this article.
(U-WIRE) STILLWATER, Okla. -- In 1986, current GOP Vice Presidential candidate Dick Cheney cast a "no" vote on a resolution that would have encouraged the South African government to release Nelson Mandela from prison.
With the Bush/Cheney ticket pushing a new, "inclusive" image, the Democrats would like us to believe that Cheney's vote exemplifies racism within his personal beliefs.
The Republicans would like us to believe that the whole situation in South Africa was too complicated for non-politicians to understand, so we should just take their word for it: Dick Cheney is not a racist.
First of all, why is it any of America's business what South Africa does in the first place? Why was Congress voting on whether or not to encourage the release of Nelson Mandela? I mean, this is America, not South Africa. Right?
Correct. But America, particularly during the Reagan Administration, had important strategic interests in South Africa. The most obvious of these were South Africa's strategic location near "sea lanes" used for global-scale military missions and shipments of consumer goods. Ports in the coastal South African cities of Cape Town and Durban have been used as resting and refueling points for in-transit ships for centuries.
Also important to the United States was the enormous amount of mineral wealth in South Africa. In 1982, South Africa was home to 84 percent of the world's non-Communist supply of chrome and 93 percent of the world's non-communist supply of manganese; these minerals are essential to the construction of nuclear missiles, SR-71 Blackbirds and fun things like that.
It is for these reasons among others, that the United States government found it necessary to prevent South Africa from falling into the hands of the Red Menace. And, of course, preventing the spread of Communism was a chief reason on its own merits.
During the Reagan administration, the President arranged US military aid to anti-communist forces in Angola for the first time in four years (an illegal move, as an earlier measure prohibiting this had not yet been overturned) and US financial aid was going to anti-Communist forces in Mozambique. Southern Africa was considered a hot zone, and South Africa -- the industrial and financial powerhouse of the continent -- was purportedly in danger of falling to the Communists.
Communists like Nelson Mandela. (Insert dramatic theme music here.)
Most of the world, including millions of Americans, saw Nelson Mandela and his organization, the African National Congress, as freedom fighters.
Ultra-conservatives like President Reagan and Dick Cheney saw Mandela and the ANC as a threat to world peace and democracy. That was the reasoning behind Cheney's vote against the release of Nelson Mandela.
Cheney's vote was anti-Communist, but not necessarily racist.
Was Nelson Mandela really a Communist? Yes and no.
He was a self-proclaimed Communist for much of his life, but Communism means something much different in South Africa than in Oklahoma. If we step away from our immediate, ethnocentric impressions of Communism, the picture becomes clearer.
Communism in sub-Saharan Africa is often synonymous with ethnic nationalism. There are deep-rooted historical reasons for this. Socialism in its most basic ideological form is similar to the community-oriented traditions of many peoples indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore Communism has historically meant something much different to black South Africans than to American politicians.
Dick Cheney failed to recognize this fact.
It is true that Mandela's ANC accepted funds from the Soviets. Why? Because they needed all the help they could get. They were fighting for freedom from the racist oppression of the apartheid government, first and foremost.
They would have taken money from Bozo the Clow
Read the rest of this comment...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
No Money - the GNU cry (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @06:34PM EDT (#282)
The NSI is evil. Open Sourcing the registry is the only way to go.
Only by eliminating all money will the world be free.
Inspired by our leaders - ESR - we will conquer the world and make everyone free. Eliminating money, we will all starve. But we will be free.
O
( \
X
8===D
Adopt a penis-bird today!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Contact Information (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @06:37PM EDT (#288)
S lashdot requires you to wait 1 minute between each submission of
It's been 60 seconds since your last submission!
I'm glad Robert Malda went to Hope College and learned the finer aspects of math. Hope College is filled with Christian Nazis that value religion over science. Let's all thank Robert Malda for going to Hope College and learning that math really doesn't count!
Robert Malda also promised to give some of the VA sellout money to the FSF. I wonder how much? Or even if any was given.
Feel free to contact Robert Malda at:
2001 Woodlark Ave
Holland, MI 49424
616-994-0441
616-399-1474
616-399-3125
If you want to prank him for free, check out i-link .
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Leftist *trendies* are in vogue (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @06:40PM EDT (#293)
I'm seeing a disturbing trend in America lately, and that is the amount of ill will, rancor, and all-out hatred that is being directed at successful and profitable corporations. These corporations, which are directly responsible for the vibrant economy and standard of living we enjoy today, are continually finding themselves the targets of anti-business leftists. You want examples? That's easy. How about Al "Internet" Gore's recent attacks on the oil companies or the drug companies? Sure, he leaves out the fact that if it weren't for these companies we would be riding bicycles around and dying at age 40, but what the hell
Nobody is saying that prescription drugs are cheap, but if Gore thinks that the kind of research that will cure cancer can be done for free, he's on some drugs of his own! And as far as the oil companies are concerned, if they saw an opportunity to increase their profits in the Midwest for a while, who is the government to say any different? Socialists like Gore think that the government should step in and regulate all prices. Uh uh, Al. Ain't gonna happen. The purpose of business is to turn a profit. Sorry if that offends leftists, but profit is why we are where we are today.
I'm sick of liberals whining about "sweat shops" and how children in Third World countries are being paid a dollar a day to put together sneakers for ten hours straight. Of course, if it wasn't for that dollar, the child would probably just curl up in a ball and die, but hey
And most of all, I'm sick of the leftist attack on Microsoft! This is the most transparent leftist interventionist government intrusion on behalf of angry and befuddled competitors in our country's history! Guess what, folks, if you can't compete, you don't deserve to be in business. Socialists think they can rely on a jack-booted government to kill off successful corporations. Sad, really
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
just repeal the first amendment (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @06:50PM EDT (#304)
why don't we just repeal the first amendment and have done with it?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
To Anyone who wants to contact a real twit judge.. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @06:53PM EDT (#309)
I thought this info might be useful... Call him for free on your net phone!
Hon. Lewis A. KAPLAN
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1310
New York, New York 10007-1312
(212) 805-0216
Courtroom 12D
Deputy (212) 805-0104
Individual Practices - 9/99
Lewis Kaplan
173 Riverside Dr
New York , NY (212)595-4688
Lewis Kaplan
173 Riverside Dr
New York , NY (212)724-5283
Please! take a moment to let him know how you feel about his mockery of the US legal system.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:To Anyone who wants to contact a real twit judg (Score:1)
by tux42 on Wednesday August 23, @09:03PM EDT (#358)
(User #213341 Info)
To Anyone who wants to contact a real twit judge.. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @06:53PM EDT (#309)
I thought this info might be useful... Call him for free on your net phone!
Hon. Lewis A. KAPLAN
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1310
New York, New York 10007-1312
(212) 805-0216
Courtroom 12D
Deputy (212) 805-0104
Individual Practices - 9/99
Lewis Kaplan
173 Riverside Dr
New York , NY (212)595-4688
Lewis Kaplan
173 Riverside Dr
New York , NY (212)724-5283
Please! take a moment to let him know how you feel about his mockery of the US legal system
You can't moderate us all.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Lemme get this straight.... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @07:07PM EDT (#319)
DeCSS isn't explicitly designed to copy DVDs right? All it does is decrypt the CSS encryption. The intended purpose for this as I understand it was
to play DVDs on OSs like Linux that weren't equipped with the decryption algorithm to play them but still DeCSS could be used for copying. So
basically DeCSS is a tool which can be used for many things, therefore the 2600 site merely linked to a tool. 2600 as far as I know never encouraged
the coping of DVDs or any illegal behavior, they just said it could be done.
So according to Judge Kaplan's logic about linking if I link to a site selling crowbars I am in violation of the law because a crowbar could be used to
burglarize a house or car even though burglarizing homes and cars isn't the sole use of a crowbar, I by linking am encouraging burglary?
If I'm wrong about the facts please correct me but from what I understand right now Judge Kaplan made quite a few leaps about motive of 2600 to
come to his findings. If he had stuck to the facts or even had a grasp of what the facts truly were there's no way he could have come to the same
conclusion without some sort of major bias against 2600.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Lemme get this straight.... (Score:1)
by tux42 on Wednesday August 23, @09:02PM EDT (#357)
(User #213341 Info)
Lemme get this straight.... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @07:07PM EDT (#319)
DeCSS isn't explicitly designed to copy DVDs right? All it does is decrypt the CSS encryption. The intended purpose for this as I understand it was to play DVDs on OSs like Linux that weren't equipped with the decryption algorithm to play them but still DeCSS could be used for copying. So basically DeCSS is a tool which can be used for many things, therefore the 2600 site merely linked to a tool. 2600 as far as I know never encouraged the coping of DVDs or any illegal behavior, they just said it could be done.
So according to Judge Kaplan's logic about linking if I link to a site selling crowbars I am in violation of the law because a crowbar could be used to burglarize a house or car even though burglarizing homes and cars isn't the sole use of a crowbar, I by linking am encouraging burglary?
If I'm wrong about the facts please correct me but from what I understand right now Judge Kaplan made quite a few leaps about motive of 2600 to come to his findings. If he had stuck to the facts or even had a grasp of what the facts truly were there's no way he could have come to the same conclusion without some sort of major bias against 2600.
You can't moderate us all.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
This makes Napster illegal (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @09:07PM EDT (#359)
After all, they link to music...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
please! (Score:-1, Flamebait)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @04:22PM EDT (#1)
first
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:please! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @04:28PM EDT (#14)
How do you call an American with a Ph.D. in Math and Physic?
STUPID AMERICAN!!!!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:please! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @04:54PM EDT (#85)
This coming from a dumb fuck who can't even manage basic grammar?
Stupid foreigner.
Get out of denial. Better yet, instigate a war with the United States so we can rid the planet of your sorry ass. I don't give a fuck what country you come from - you're no match for the United States. Germany, England, Russia, Italy, Iraq (haha), Kosovo. Does it fucking matter? We're the only superpower now, mother fucker, and you can't do shit about it. Thank you, National Security Agency (AKA "No Such Agency")!@
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Europeans (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @04:55PM EDT (#92)
Shouldn't you little euro-scum be asleep by now? I mean, you've got to go to work tomorrow. Oh, but I forgot, the in a socialist society you don't have to work...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Europeans (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @07:28PM EDT (#329)
Why do you morons assume s/he is from Europe? It's a BIG Internet.
Bad logic. Baaaad.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Europeans (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @08:17PM EDT (#350)
kaplan. fucking kike
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
wired down the tubes (Score:-1, Flamebait)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @04:22PM EDT (#2)
(v)33|v!k 53|v7 u5 @ w1|~3d |v3w5 @|~7|cl3 0|v judg3 k4pl4|v'5 |~ul||vg 7h47 3ff3c7!v3ly (v)4k35 l!|vk||vg +h||vg5 l!k3 d3c55 |ll3g@l. +h!5 15 4 l|77l3 |3!7 (v)0|~3\\ 3X+|~3(v)3 ()f 4 p|3c3 +h3|v ()u|~ c0v3|~4g3 h3|~3 4 f3w d@y5 @g() |3u+ 1+5 w0|~+h @ |~3@d.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:wired down the tubes (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @05:09PM EDT (#133)
i:Exit -:PrevPg
From: The United States of America
Subject: World Domination
To: citizens@ofthetwentiethcentury.com
Date: 23 Aug 2276 05:00:00 (PDT)
Dear citizens of the 20th century:
We send this notification from our country's 500th Anniversary to inform those who are entering the 21st century that the United States of America maintains world dominance.
EOF
-------
THANK YOU CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. CIA.GOV
THANK YOU NATIONAL SECURITY ANGECY. NO SUCH AGENCY
THANK YOU CENSORSHIP. CENSORSHIP
THANK YOU RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA. RIAA
THANK YOU. YOU ARE OUR FUTURE.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Some history (Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23, @06:32PM EDT (#277)
When it was founded in 1993, VIVA Linux Systems was the world's first Linux systems company. Today we are the leading providers of integrated Linux solutions. We offer a single point of contact for all Linux systems, software and service needs. We have over six years of experience serving commercial Linux-based customers. This experience combined with our broad base of technical experts in Linux systems and software as well as our close ties to the Open Source development community, enables us to develop Linux-based solutions that are more reliable scalable and cost effective.
Okay- so we all hate Judge Kaplan and would like to see him violated in ways to painful and explicit to mention here; but killing DeCSS links is not the worst of this ruling, nor is the larger legal precedent over the internet; it's the precedent this could create over your use of any of your property that is now "licensed" instead of sold. Imagine this. -Microsoft claims that Fat 32 partitions are a copy-protection scheme designed to protect their copyright on Microsoft Windows. This is actually true, in part. Fat 32 is not natively readable by other OSes and does protect the digital media of the Microsoft Windows Operating System. As a result, only Microsoft Licensed readers can read Fat 32 legally. Source code to read Fat 32 in any other way is now illegal. Bubye dual-boot. Live with only Linux or face the wrath of M$! -MP3 format is bought by the RIAA. The encoding of MP3s is now a copy-protection scheme. Only licensed players may be used to play these files. Are there any licensed players? Hell no. Do they plan to make any? Hell no. Bubye MP3... While these may seem far-fetched, ask yourself- did you ever think a judge would rule that it is illegal to link to a certain site? Now- ask yourself- when is enough enough? We've got to do something folks. This is getting out of hand.
Why not take the DeCSS source and break it into multiple parts? Let's say halves. The first half we'll term DeCSS-A, and the second half, DeCSS-B. Even better, we could reverse-interleave the bytes, so that every odd byte is in DeCSS-A, and every even byte is in DeCSS-B. We'll also write a tiny little program to combine the two halves should they be brought together.
Then all we have to do is get everyone to only host half of the source. Each person would pick one randomly. I can't imagine that software that doesn't compile could be ruled illegal... "You can't link to that!" "Oh, you mean this random string of data that does nothing useful?"
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
If you go to almost any major commercial Internet site, they have (likely in very fine print at the bottom of the page) a link to "terms of service" that you supposively agree to simply by visiting the site.
Combine that with the recently passed US legislation which defines even a simple click of the mouse as legally binding, and you can't link to many sites no matter what.
And it's working. Chances are, the Republicans will sweep in November and control the white house AND both houses of Congress.
The Republicans have always sided with big business, who we are supposed to trust.
And Democrats are doing their best to be more like Republicans every day. :-(
A friend of mine summed up the two parties quite well. The democrats what to legislate what you do, and the Republicans want to legislate what you think.
So what am I saying here. Don't bitch, vote in November. Find out which of the two-sided liars will do the least damage to our freedoms and vote for that person. Don't listen to the rhetoric and for all of our sake, never ever let the Democrats or Republicans control everything. The best government is one that is deadlocked and can't get anything done. They do less damage that way.
Only 25% of young people eligible to vote actually do so. Please tell politicians how you feel, and what will influence your vote and then go ahead and make an informed decision and do it.
By letting out legislators value people with entrenched businesses and money in the bank more than those without, we're volunteering for opression. In the future, we'll have to scrutinize every word we write, every bit of science we research to make sure it's not stepping on some corporation or coalitions toes. Cuz if we don't, their hired guns will take us to jail.
Some software out there automatically turns URLs in text form into links. What is the legal situation with that in the mix?
Okay so what if they then say a URL is illegal? Then, for example, if instead of saying get "http://www.decss.com/DeCSS.zip", I say "Go to the server named www in the domain decss.com, connect to the http port and request a ZIP file called DeCSS with the standard extension for such a file and save the resulting output to a file", would that be illegal?
Where does it end?
Maybe we can just make it a felony to mention that CSS could be cracked, or to say anything that could make someone even think along those lines. If it is felt that we need thought police to protect copyright, the Corporatists are just going to say "So be it". Can't let something like basic human rights get in the way of profits. The bought out judges and politicians know who really pays their salaries and keeps them employed, since the majority of the voters don't care about the issues, they'll just vote for the guy that screams the loudest and most often (i.e. the one with the most money, since that is what buys the ability to "scream loudly and often").
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I see a few posts about how slashdot is pro-DeCSS, or that we're not giving this whole thing a fair shake.
.5% of the world population actually reads slashdot - they'll be none the wiser. And in 10 years time - no one will even miss the useful product you made...because no one will know about it.
Let me be blunt. We're not, and the reasons are simple. This is not the last we'll see of 1st amendment violations on the net, this isn't the last of journalistic muzzling. This is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Orgs like the MPAA, or the RIAA are suing people like 2600 or Napster because they're still not commonplace (at least Napster wasn't when this shit started). Let me put it this way:
Hi, i'm Mr. Jones from Company X. I see you sitting there doing something that REALLY pisses me off, and threatens to leave me with so little money in the pocket of my Versache suit that i might have to whittle my car collection down to just 8 BMW's. So - it's become clear to me that i have to fuck you over to make sure that my pockets stay nice and lined for the cold winter that YOU are about to have. So, in all honesty, you have come up with a good product. one that is completely legal. that irks me. but i've got somethin' going for me. No one knows about it yet. So if i, Mr. Jones from Company X, fuck you over....the only people who are going to bitch about it are the extremists on slashdot. And since
That's the way the world gets fucked by orgs like the MPAA - Preventative Maintenance.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
(*) For those that like to pick apart analogies, this is not like the currently existing "breaking and entering". In the physical world you can't get charged with that if you own the house in question. Even if the people that built/sold the house and locks want you to never get in your house again. You have less rights in the virtual world than you do in the "real" (physical) world.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
This has probably been brought up earlier, but I don't have time to sift through 400 comments (yeah, I'm just lazy). So is it illegal to provide a URL to things such as DeCSS as just text? I mean, even my grandma would have enough sense to copy a URL from a webpage and paste it into a location bar, and then hit enter. If this is considered illegal, then that would certainly be the biggest attack on free speech that I've seen to date. Just my 2 cents...
Remember: Citizens have rights. Consumers have only wallets.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Made a small, single man helicopter more than 10 years ago. A real helo, not a gyro.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Ok I admit this is a somewhat silly exercise, but I wanted to see if I could access DeCSS source rom Judge Kaplan's site so here goes. don't want to do anything illegal here so I'm just going to use inline text.
t m / 377/
start at http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/USDJ/kaplan.h
click the link titled "help"
scroll down to the browser types section and click on the link titled "http://www.home.netscape.com/computing/download"
Go to the Search form at the bottom and type in "decss"
First link I got was this http://www.fortunecity.de/wolkenkratzer/diamanten
which happens to have links to DeCSS
Seems to me like the judge should have done a little more research before he ruled considering that DeCSS was accessible in 4 clicks from his own page
I am the first to agree that those with oft heard voices (the press and those with access to mass media) are often overly self important, a trait that I do not like in the least.
However, as self-important as the press may be, the government has no right to treat them this way. Telling people about *something*, anything (in this case, DeCSS) should not result in legal bills and censorship of ANYBODY.
The government already thinks that they can take away our self-defense, free travel and free thought. Free press does not need to go down freedoms have. This Klintonista judge deserves a good fight.
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
The same roads that take the crooks to my home carry the police...
The same search engens that help a pirate find pirate Matalica MP3s help Lars find same...
The same search that helps people steal Microsoft Windows helps Microsoft hunt down illegal copys of same...
The same...
But linking is illegal....
So now the criminals can safely post whatever they like free in the knowladage that it's illegal for the police to find them...
Yeah I know it won't matter but the whole point here is the link works for everyone...
If you want to get rid of all the copys of a program floating around the Internet... links are your allies.. not your enemys...
This rulling has given this code immortality...
I don't actually exist.
Alberta
Intolerant people should be shot.
Kaplan says in the ruling that 2600 was only banned from linking because they were intentionally linking to DeCSS. If you linked to a page without knowing that you were linking (or intending to link) to DeCSS, you would not be liable, according to Kaplan.
The ironic thing is that if the judge rules that non-HTML address are also illegal, would this mean that the judge violated his own ruling by with his Memorandum Opinion because it contians the address dvd-copy.com which has an analysis of the CSS encryption system on it?
Tyrannosaurus said:
I love the fact that 2600 can legally print the URL, they just can't embed it within a link anchor. Does this mean that your telemarketer could use your phone number as long as a computer didn't dial the number for him?
Actually, I've been thinking about this a lot recently. What with more and more states using cameras on the highways to monitor my speed, cameras on signal lights to make sure I don't go through on yellow, microphone-networks in public neighborhoods to locate illegal activity, code enforcers fining me for not getting a city permit (with, of course, a clerical fee; ie more taxes) to have a garage sale on my "own" property.... I really see no important difference between my life and that of, say, Winston Smith.
It's taken two hundred years, but bureacracy has finally made the Bill of Rights (the only part of the constitution that really does much for We, The People -- though it was wrong not to have included universal sufferage and equal protection from the beginning) completely irrelevant. The river of human authoritarian bullshit flows ever on, finding new ways to bypass the temporary barriers we place in its path.
I think we should add another rights-of-the-accused amendment in between IV and V with provisions that roughly say:
"Although the course of recent history has shown that systems of power use technology to obliterate the People's Rights, direct judgement by one's peers is essential to the survival of freedom -- because while keeping the citizens honest it also, by providing personal accountability to the prosecutor, helps keep the State honest as well. It is self-evident that as social complexity increases the distance between free men and their governments, those governments use their bureacracy as foils for increasingly heinous violations of Liberty. Therefore, let it be decreed that no federal, state, or municipal agency shall directly infringe upon the People's right to be caught and prosecuted by another human being."
I mean it. I think speed limits are ridiculous (forethought and consideration are far more important to safe driving), but if I'm going to be caught, have Smokey pull me over. It is immoral to have a camera capture my license, collude with a computer for my radar-ed speed and then automagically generate a ticket mailed to my house in five working days without any human involvement other than maybe the Data Processing geek who runs the daily batches.
Our current problems will be as specks of dust next to the injustices that will be dished out if we allow our criminal justice system to become automated.
I am intelligent. I've always loved science, both as fictional entertainment and factual enlightenment. I generally support scientific research and the gadgets that result therefrom. However, if modern geeks: researchers, doctors, hackers, physicists, statisticians, programmers and the like continue to aid and abet the full merger of the Manipulative Technocracy with the Inhibitive Bureaucracy, you can bet grandma's sweet-tater pie that I'll be right at the forefront of the angry, uneducated mob that destroys all technology a la Player Piano and Canticle For Leibowitz
(oh, and please note that we are talking regulations on governments, not people -- private citizens may still automatically videotape their private property and ask to enter such recordings as evidence should their homes/service stations be burgled. yes, it would need some tweaking, but i think the basic idea is valid)
the problem with teens is they're looking for certainties.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
Hey, if the MPAA can get the Anonymous Coward locked up then maybe this whole DeCSS thing has really acheived something!
Regards, Ralph.
I know that this is offtopic as hell, but just humor me, moderators.
Ostriches don't actually stick their heads in the sand when they are scared. Where this falsity comes from is that the original researchers that went to Africa saw the Ostriches with their heads in the sand and came to the conclusion that the birds were afraid of the humans and were trying to hide. In reality, the birds had most likely seen a man before and so had nothing to base it's fear on. Additionally (and this is the important bit), it is now known that when Ostriches stick their heads in the ground, they are digging for worms and grubs that lie just under the hotter surface.
Sorry for that little disturbance.. on with your lives.
Rami
--
rJames.org - illustration
How else are they going to find all the offending pages to go after? Where do you think they got that list of 500 defendants in the California (?) case!?
My 2 cents: if this upsets you, try "civil disobedience" - post your own links to DeCSS and other "banned" stuff everywhere you can (that is, your own websites - no advocacy for crackers/defacers intended). Keep the suits and lawyers so busy, they lose sight of the bottom line and start losing $$$. Use massive, peaceful protest to help change the current system. Examples: Ghandi, MLK, and now Emmanuel Goldstein? /. effect though. Wouldn't it be simple enough though to post the code on UK hosted UseNet servers? You yanks may have some weird laws, like us in the UK. However, there are always ways to get around them. Maybe someone could spray paint the url on walls of prominent public buildings. I am encouraging crime here, so maybe a link to this article is illegal. To make it even more illegal let's try this one. If someone kills any member of the US government I'll give them my PC. Does that mean I've just taken out a contract on the President?
Hmm. This is US ruling only. So why can't we have links to the DeCSS code hosted on UK servers. I've got a UK server which unfortuantely couldn't keep up with the
-- Be careful what you say. Someone might remind you about it another day.
Someone (lots of people, with mirrors) could have a site that was just a whole bunch of numbered links. *Anyone* can add a link. Then, when you want to point someone to a site, you just say `goto ListedSite 1052393` .
If a judge can make a number illegal, i`m not even going to go to America on holiday!
Would people be arguing so hard for the right to link to child porn? I don't think so. Because the right minded person agrees that child porn is wrong. So they can see the reasons why society might not want people to even link to it.
But in this case, what people don't accept is that DeCSS is wrong.
You have to choose your argument, is it a free speech one, or is it that DeCSS shouldn't be illegal?
In general when a law is seen as wrong, civil disobedience is the course of action the people take against it.
The issue of the absurdity of the ruling (links to links, search engines, etc.) is a side-issue in my opinion. The nature of the internet makes current legislative techniques pretty useless in all manor of areas, but that isn't the point here.
ok so 2600 can't link to a site just because it has DeCSS on it, but what if they linked to a site that didn't have DeCSS on it and then the site owner replaced that page with a copy of the DeCSS code. 2600 didn't provide the link for the purpose of DeCSS but that is what the outcome is.
From the Financial Times: Dutch papers fail in internet copyright case : Leading Dutch newspapers yesterday failed to prevent an online news service from providing direct links to articles on newspaper websites, in a legal ruling that helps define the limits of internet copyright.
This is Keanu Reeves talking to you :)
so now napster distributes not only information on the growing and production of pot (Nederwiet by Doe Maar) but also on the viewing of DVDs. Wonder when they'll take that route.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Anyone have an official graphic/banner for this yet? Nothing looks better than hundrerds of thousands of sites with little buttons that say download the DeCSS code here.
Or if you used it on yourself, you could be arrested for hiding evidence.
This thing is really out of control. I hope the few sane people left in Washington are paying attention.
The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
I had the same thought, though I think it would be better implemented using Freenet. Reason being that with Gnutella, your files have to be hosted on your computer and you have to choose which files you want to publish--so it's not very "anonymous" at all, as it can be traced back to your computer. Rather, with Freenet, information is moved around between computers, so that information you publish does not have to be hosted on your own computer. Freenet also refernces files using a checksum IIRC, so you can be sure that any "links" you make would point ot the same file.
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
>Since i'm in England Judge thicko's lack of >judgement can't hurt me
True but it won't stop the MPAA threatening legal action against your ISP (as they did with mine and I'm in the UK). Your ISP is most likely to panic and at best deactivate your site until DeCSS is removed. The only piece of good news is until they do initialte legal action against you your ISP can't release your personal details (address etc) because of the data protection act (and the MPAA will ask).
Check out www.ash-ridley.net and go to my PC page to see the a copy of the email (in the news page)they sent my ISP.
....but all they found there was a man who repeatedly said that nothing was true, but was later found to be lying.
I know that everyone always posts that we should write our government. Many say that it doesn't do any good. However, I've found that it takes about 2 minutes to send a prewritten letter (That is almost always posted to /.) to my congressman. Here is a link to an email directory of all the congressmen in the U.S.
a il.html
:) and a cron job that sends the email out every Mon, Wed, Fri I figure they can't ignore me forever (Hell it worked in Shawshank)
http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-em
I've created a group with all of them
This has been an excellent thread. Rarely do I laugh out loud while surfing the web at work. And a lot of very interesting points have been raised.
So, JonKatz, that means you don't need to write a piece on this ruling that says all the same ideas in three times as many words.
Please?
grep -ri 'should work'
I'd gladly turn you in to the MPAA today for a cheeseburger tomorrow. ;)
Eric
This whole DeCSS judgement is a violation of our rights. Not to copy DVD's but just the fact it makes it illegal to learn how programs work.
Freedom of speech: Not being able to say what's on my mind (i.e. link to a web page).
I say "Add links to your sites! Let people download the actual programs off your page! Share the source code!" Let them sue ALL of us and waste countless millions of dollars. http://www.2600.com comments that litigation cost a pretty penny just for them.
Hey, the files and source code are on my page and the programs too. I stand up for what I believe in.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
I have heard as much, but prefer to imagine that there is a big red button. What's the point in running for President if you can't have a big red button that blows up the world?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
You're too late. THere has already been litigation for *both* buslines connecting bad neighborhoods to good ones, *and* for having the bus from the bad neighborhood stop on the other side of the street (someone got run over going into the mall to work).
The busline lost the second, and I think the first (but don't hold me to htat one)
hawk, esq.
Your absolutely right, luckiliy I haven't sent the letter out, I'm chaning any mention of the word consumer to citizen as we speak.
www.enthea.org
When something becomes illegal in your own country what do most people do? Do it anyways or do it in another country. Host the code in Canada. We've already got a few places with the code for DeCSS uploaded to them.
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
I whole-heartedly agree with your intent and plan on sending a message to my Congressional Representatives & Senators. But I will not plagiarize someone else's writing to do so as you have.
Paragraphs 3, 4, 8-13 are taken directly word for word from Peter Coffee's opinion column with no acknowledgment whatsoever.
Many a discussion has been had on whether copyrights are needed and you, dear sir/madam, aptly demonstrate the necessity. Phffft! You disgust me.
-- This opinion Copyright (C) 2000 Whitefox; fair use is explicitly allowed.
Mattel tried to censor me and my website with frivilous and abusive litigation. I am now fighting back with a $48.5 million dollar lawsuit. If they paid that much money, then they may think about abusing others.
Why $48.5 million? Actually it's $48,595,103.77. Most of that number comes from the survey done on the site last year. Mattel threatened Mattl.com, went after www.barbiebenson.com, the cphack guys. And this little guy is fighting back!
Fight Spammers!
Hmm. IANAL but looking at the general concesus (sp?) around here regarding the ruling says that you can't link to a site that promotes illegal activities, or speaks about illegal activities, or has software on it that can be used for illegal activities. Well, think about this. MS's site promotes windows. Windows was used to make MS's monopoly. IE's on there too. That was used in building a monopoly. And (duh) windows help has links to microsoft's site. Humm.... I guess that makes windows illegal. All the better for you linux supporters, hmm?
That would be perfectly OK, according to Kaplan. Now, Kaplan's clearly biased and might have come to a different conclusion given those facts, but speculation is cheap.
Of course, if 2600 linked to this site saying "Get your DeCSS HERE", it wouldn't matter much whether or not DeCSS was there at the time of the linking or at present time, it's pretty clear what the purpose of the link is.
-Elendale (A thought: should be real letters, email would be counter-productive in this case)
Karma burn coming
As i meta-troll again
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
But in a strongly worded statement earlier this summer, MPAA president Jack Valenti made it clear where he stood: "(2600 publisher Eric Corley) is transporting individuals electronically to locations in order to facilitate the illegal copying of DVDs. His behavior is analogous to driving someone to a home so that they may burglarize the home."
ok, real quick. Q: how can burglary of a house be related to copyright infringement?
(hint: different categories of crimes)
A: they can't!
why is this statement even considered as an adequate analogy. it's more like its copyright infringement if you drive your friend to the store to get blank cd's to copy some albums on cd. now that doesn't sound so evil and wrong now does it?
--
dead angel
i am strange people. -me
dead angel
i am strange people. -me
spreading linux lovin' since 1998!
Don't vote the lesser of two evils, vote Nader/Laduke!
(end Nader plug)
-Elendale (and that's all i have to say about THAT, except: Don't be a loser! Go vote!)
Karma burn coming
As i meta-troll again
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
http://www.goingware.com/decss
We now return you to your program.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Someone else wrote here about how if a link is illegal, then is a link once-removed illegeal? Three removed? ad infinitum
Obviously not even the most idiotic judge would think you could outaw links thus removed from the target since everything on the WWW is only several clicks away -- you'd be making every hyperlink within the judge's jurisdiction illegal.
So, everyone please do this:
put up a redirect page, manual or automatic, maybe even link that page to redirect. After one or two levels, link that to *another site you know of* hosting DeCSS (according to the ruling, it has to be on another site instead of yours, since 2600 is enjoined from linking to sites that have DeCSS, not just to copies themselves).
Submit the first URL to 2600 (okay, maybe don't do that since they'd probably be pissed at the deluge of mail).
and on Napster:
"The lawsuits against Napster may be aimed at piracy, but they could also stomp out small record labels and unsigned artists who want their music to float freely through the world of Napster. But the big labels want to shut down the entire service. If the current laws are not strong enough, they want new laws that will stop people from making some kinds of open technology. They imagine a world where technology will control and limit people instead of liberating them."
Go NYT!
PS. I just submitted this as a story, and it's been reclassified as "YRO" in the submissions queueue, so it might hit the front page soon.
You sir are a cry-baby! Whoever cosmosis is is of no importance as he so aptly demonstrated. He said he sent a letter to congress, not once saying he wrote a letter. Since he did not claim to write it it is not plagierism you over-reacting whiner!
no, they are not just linking to it. That's my point. The information is on THEIR server. It is actually physically there! Does anyone know whether they can be held responsible for data in their cache? Or whether they have to remove it if they are alerted to its presence??