Slashdot Mirror
More DeCSS Time-Warner Hypocrisy
Sethb writes "Scripting News has the scoop about CNN linking to the source code for DeCSS. CNN is a subsidiary of Time-Warner, so in effect they're suing 2600 and others for something that they are doing themselves!" Update: 08/26 02:05 AM by michael : CNN has deleted the link from their story after reporters asked about it. But the screenshots are out there.
WTF?
The HYPOCRISY is in that 2600 was doing the same thing. They are a journalistic site, but on the fringe. So it's all right for a news site to post as long as their NOT on the fringe, and owned by the plaintiffs? It's just as sleazy for T-W to force any reporting group to pull an article, whether that group is one they own or not.
If CNN had been the one to "break" DeCSS, and not 2600, there wouldn't have been any court case.. precisely because T-W owns CNN.
- http://www.warnerbros.com/event.ng/Type=clic k&ProfileID=4434&RunID=16324&AdID=7738&TagValues=
1 99.256.273.3072.3073.3074.3139&FamilyID= 1117&GroupID=463&Redirect=http:%2F%2Fwww.2600.dk%2 Fmirrors%2Fcss%2Ffiles%2FDeCSS.zip
- http://www.mca.com/globalnav/gnf.pl?url=http:%2F%
2 Fwww.2600.dk%2Fmirrors%2 Fcss%2Ffiles%2FDeCSS.zip
- http://disney.go.com/event.ng/Type=click& RunID=11143&ProfileID=2828&AdID=8588&GroupID=481&
F amilyID=1934&TagValues=2635.2638.2641.27 42.3148.3194.3198.3306&Redirect=http:%2F%2Fwww.260 0.dk%2Fmirrors%2Fcss%2Ffiles%2FDeCSS.zip
On an unrelated topic, from my understanding the reverse engineering of CSS was originally deemed illegal because presumably Jon Johansen clicked a button which indicated he complied with a license that said he wouldn't reverse engineer Xing's DVD player. My question is: don't the laws of Norway require you to be legal age (18) to enter into a contract?Presumably, CNN and Time-Warner are free to link to it as they see fit.
If I couldn't tell my ass from my head, I'd say that 2600 got sued because they didn't believe in copyright law, and Eric's mother dressed him funny (two facts which have about the same relevance to the case, except for the fact that since I can't tell my head from my ass, I can choose ignore the sworn testimony of the defendants to the contrary)... and that CNN/Time-Warner shouldn't be sued because, after all, they're respectable law-abiding organizations that promulgate goodthought.
As others have pointed out, this is a first amendment case - if linking to source code is legally actionable under DMCA, we're all suffering from a chilling effect, because it's reasonable to assume that MPAA is much more likely to sue "one of us" than it is CNN/Time-Warner.
This is also an antitrust case - going offtopic for a moment: since CSS does (as a matter of simple fact) not prevent DVDs from being pirated (the encrypted streams can be copied with suitable equipment), about the only function it serves is to protect a licensing cartel between MPAA and the hardware manufacturers. DeCSS isn't required for DVD piracy. Indeed, the only thing DeCSS does is allow an end user to decrypt and play back the encrypted video stream on hardware not licensed by the aforementioned MPAA/hardware-manufacturer cartel.
The Microsoft trial showed that doctored videotapes are admissible, so why not screenshots?
Oops!
Little problem. Jack, we need more lawyers!
It's already been made into a song.- ------------
------------------------------------------
Wow, they're quick. 2 comments here on Slashdot.org, and the CNN story that was supposedly carrying the link has been changed. That's pretty blisteringly fast. So, here's a thought: They're watching everything closely. Remember that. If you have a thought, maybe a plan, that could *really* work, maybe you should contact the proper authorities(maybe the EFF or something) privately.
Dave
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Has a really great article on the AOL-Time-Warner merger that specifically discusses Time-Warner's coporate culture of basically ongoing civil warfare between the departments. The crux of the issue is that it's gotten so damned big relatively quickly---even without the added factor of AOL---that its internal sectors might as well be separate companies. Lots of power struggles and penis measuring contests, apparently.
Good read. Not online yet, as Wired doesn't post current magazine content, but for posterity, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.09/ Definitely pick it up off the newstand for a bit of insight into intracorporate warfare.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
http://www.goingware.com/decss
When a law is unjust, it is just to disobey the law. Also, court judgements can only be made based on actual cases; the U.S. court system does not render "advisory opinions", so if you believe that your rights have been violated by Judge Kaplan's decision, it is your duty to mirror DeCSS too.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Don't call it "hypocrisy" just yet. There is a long tradition in "legitimate" journalism of a wall of separation between the editorial (content) and business (financial) sides of news organizations. This wall is admittedly getting some chunks knocked out of it in today's corporate-driven media, but there are many journalists who will be damned if they'll let the suits spike their story.
I wouldn't be surprised if some folks in the news division at CNN.com, or IDG, or LinuxWorld -- whoever's responsible -- included the link on the same basis as they would any other external link. Maybe they even thought that highlighting this worldwide list was important in driving a point home. They made their journalistic point. Then the lawyers for the Suits noticed; rather than have that inconsistency noted for all and sundry to see (too late -- thanks, Scripting News), and to keep themselves from violating the law as interpreted by Kaplan, the suits pulled the plug.