Slashdot Mirror
Amicus Brief in DeCSS case
e271828 writes "Brian Kernighan, Marvin Minsky, Ron Rivest, and Richard Stallman are among the CS stalwarts that have jointly filed an amici curiae brief supporting the EFF and 2600. The brief, hosted on Cryptome makes for excellent reading." This is to accompany the appeal that we mentioned a few days ago.
For example, pretend I am an average consumer who owns a Windows PC. Why should I care about DeCSS? Give me a nice, simple sound bite that doesn't require me to convert to the free software religion first.
Note, specifically, that as an average consumer with a Windows PC I don't give a shit about what Linux (or Mac, or Amiga, or Playstation) users can or can't do. Why bother writing software to play DVDs? My computer already plays DVDs just fine. Anyway, you can pay money to license it if you want.
More importantly, I don't give a shit about abstract concepts of freedom of speech or code. I will never write or compile software, I will almost certainly never make a movie or write music, and as long as the new Harrison Ford movie costs $14.95 or less at Circuit City, I don't care if there's restrictions on copying it. (If it breaks, I buy a new one.)
So, tell me: as a Windows-using information consumer, why do I give a shit about DeCSS?
If I'm reading the brief correctly they're saying that plain-English words on a page are given standard First Ammendment protection, and they feel source should be treated the same. Why not then do what the MD5 author did and write up a generic, plain-English description of how the DeCSS algorithm works? Once that happens it's no longer computer code (in the court's eyes anyway) and the whole functionality argument goes right out the window.
:)
You know what would happen next? The paper would fly around the net and within a few days you would have a dozen different implementations. I'd like to see the MPAA and DVDCCA try and tackle that one!
A friend of mine couldn't find a free player for Windows, either. There are several software DVD players for Linux now, albeit not with the most efficient software decoders.
If you really don't want to pay for a shareware player, it looks like your only option is to download a DVD ripper (I think FlaskMPEG+DeCSS is the only choice if you don't already have a DVD player software) and make DivX copies of those movies. You can then get the codec installed in Windows (and Linux, thanks to the avifile Wine loader hackery) for free.
But with all the noise about this case I would think they were fighting something "REAL", not just some source code sippets.
Get on an OpenNAP server, search for "divx". There are hundreds of ripped movies out there, although bandwidth is still precious enough that people will only let you trade, not freeload. (Or is fear of authority the problem? Hell, I'm nervous enough to post anonymously and I don't even have any pirated movies)
The MPAA is scared as hell. Thanks to Blockbuster's "DVD per night" rental card and CD-Rs it costs about a dollar to rip a DVD movie. Thanks to cable modems it costs about a dollar more (or zero marginal cost, for people who would get a cable modem anyway and only trade a couple movies per day) to send a copy of that rip across the country. That's a fraction of what the movie would cost otherwise, and only a fraction of that goes to the producers through Blockbuster.
Don't get me wrong, it's still not enough reason to stomp on the First Amendment, but if they weren't trying to destroy fair use rights I'd actually be sympathetic.
This would be correct, except for one minor little problem- precedent. This case, and others like it, *will* matter when it's our turn be sued for being programmers.
No.
The way to bring this issue to "normal" people (Joe 6Pack), is to tell it like it really is. What is this issue about? It's about undue influence of government by well-funded special interest groups.
There is only one cure for this.
Campaign Finance Reform.
Again, I blame all the morons who did not vote for Bill McCain in the primaries. Until we get real Campaign Finance Reform that has teeth, nothing will change. The moneyed interests will do what they have to to ensure that the legal environment favors them.
End of story.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The Elements of Style
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Don't be silly, you can't make the MPAA change their tune. Not with market forces, when the market consists of many billions of sheep willing to spend their money on products despite your lunatic ranting. The only way to fix this problem is to remove the undue influence moneyed parties have on the lawmaking process. In other words, we need real Campaign Finance Reform NOW.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I love it! They referenced various poems written in perl as an example of creative speech using computer code, and the Internation Obfuscated C Code Contest as an example of satire. Never thought I'd see *that* in a legal brief.
Causation can cause correlation
Reading this is a real eye-opener. This brief is so well-written, even I (who hate legalese) could read it. Moreover, it elegantly illustrates just *why* code is speech, why any other view is a slippery slope towards eroding protections, and why it is in the best interests of the court to overturn the previous ruling and just give up on any attempt to litigate this matter.
:-).
Not to mention the list of people on this -- it's like a "who's who" of CS/IS. The only person they missed was CmdrTaco
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
I seem to recall a case in the 1800s involving counterfeit music rolls for player pianos. Judgement was something to the effect that, machine-read documents could be protected under copyright law the same as human-read ones.
That judgement, I also seem to remember, WAS the standard by which computer software was allowed to be copyrighted up until the next major reform in copyright law sometime in the 1980s.
Now I want to go a step further. Machine language and people language are equivalent for copyright purposes - otherwise software, and for that matter, the MPEG streams contained on a DVD, can't be protected by copyright! But the MPAA, which THRIVES on the fact that machine and human languages are equivalent under copyright law, wants to separate the two under the First Amendment - and it's gonna be damn hard for them to demonstrate LEGALLY (not financially) why they should be allowed to have it both ways.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
The (textual strict subset of English) program or the (having nothing to do with DeCSS) strict English interpreter?
I disagree with your point, since as others have pointed out a program is still a program even if it's interpreted. But even more important is that your point is irrelevant to the above question; I think you're losing sight of the forest for the trees here...
1. Am I correct
2. Who do I contact
Suddenly I'm very pleased to be a Verio SDSL customer. I would never have dreamed a telecomm provider like Verio would have the testicular fortitute to tell the MPAA to smeg off.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Look at the recent Apple product announcements. New Macs are shipping with the ability to capture video to MPEG-2 streams and burn it to DVDs, watchable on regular DVD players. The MPAA is already out of the loop. Free DVD software is just a way for free software users and developers to participate. You don't want the Mac people having all the fun, do you? :)
Anyway, my point is that free DVD software makes independent (non-MPAA) movie making even cheaper than it ever was before. Soone you won't even need an expensive video tape deck: you can do everything in the digital domain with free software, everyday computers, and cheap DVD-R media.
If you are willing to ditch W2K, Xine with the Captain CSS plug-in makes watching DVDs in linux a joy.
The core technologies of DVD are the disc and player itself, MPEG-2 video compression, various audio encodings including AC3, and a file system with chapters, menus, and branching.
Ah, I see. Do you refuse to go to the movies as well?
I mention this because I refuse, and I've found that I don't really miss them. As for DVDs and players, I've found a solution I'm happy with & it's the same I use for major-label CDs: buy used. That way, not only is the MPAA not getting your tithe, but you've help keep one less drive from getting wasted & thrown away.
If a woodchuck could, would it be too lazy to?
They are handing an argument on a platter here, in my view. Pages spent saying code is speech, there is no line between code and expression, etc. is subverted right here. At least in debater-ish terms; no idea what a lawyer would make of that.
On a different note, I found it funny that they couldn't get by without a reference to Star Trek:
What SLS has developed is not as advanced as the computer interface on the starship Enterprise, of course, but it is a working example of human speech as the "source code" for a computer
-j
I forget what 8 was for.
Ask a dumb question, get a great answer.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Why does this sound so much like:
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."
- Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1938
Has it occured to you or your father that once a precedence is set, then they can move on to other lawsuits with more ease of prosecution?
Vip
After all, a DVD is a program. The code that performs the operation of the menus and such is a program. Clearly, and with no doubt. The MPEG stream itself could also be considered a program: it's the object code for the virtual decoder machine. Actually, in the case of a DVD player, it is being fed to a hardware MPEG decoder which is nothing but a special purpose processor.
So, by the MPAA's own logic, it appears that DVD's do not in fact qualify for First Amendment protection. They are programs for DVD players. The fact that they may (or may not) have artistic content or communicate ideas is secondary to their functional aspect as a set of commands to run a DVD player.
It's been done. Omri Schwartz wrote C to English to C perl scripts a/k/a DECSS (Descriptive English for C Statements and Subroutines).
An English version of css-auth.c produced with this program can be downloaded from Dr. David Touretzky's Gallery of CSS Descramblers.
about a ISP that is not backing down to the MPAA threats
news.com
good timing
http://Lenny.com
You obviously don't know much about how the US judicial system works.
Civil suits are between two parties. Everyone else is an observer, even if it's clear to everyone involved that the plantiff carefully searched for a defendant who 1) didn't have many resources to fight the case and 2) seemed to have the best case for establishing broad precedents.
Once the judgement comes down against the plantiff the details don't matter - the precedence has been established and every subsequent court case in this jurisdiction must consider it. (I won't get into binding vs. non-binding precedents, etc.) This is a powerful tool for suppressing dissent, since every future defendant must prove why the precedence doesn't apply in their case.
Needless to say, this create a HUGE potential for mischief. To balance it, courts allow others affected by any precedence established, but not involved in the specific case, to file briefs that may be considered by the court. These briefs usually illuminate points that one party doesn't want brought up - and the other party *can't* bring up because of the rules of the courtroom. This might result in a reversed judgement, or at least the restriction of the judgement to be non-precedent setting.
The MPAA may be fuming about the content of this brief, but there's not a whole lot they can do about it. Any attempt to suppress it would merely serve to highly just how carefully constrained their case is -- and why it must not be used to establish precedence for suppressing such publications.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I paid attention in civics class. If you think I have no right to discuss this (and potentially learn from others) then you believe that either 1) voters are best when ignorant and apathetic or 2) that only practicing lawyers should have the right to vote. Either way, you are no friend of democracy.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Perhaps the most important quote:
...", the core purpose of copyright. U.S. CONST., art. I, 8 (Copyright Clause). Minimizing First Amendment protections given to code would deter, not promote, the progress of science.
2. Among academics and programmers, communicating in computer code (in addition to or in lieu of a natural language) is essential "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts
While I agree with the conclusion, I don't think the argument is the most important one, either legally or morally in the present case. Legally, the DMCA could stand even if it were not authorized under the Copyright Clause -- because Congress could still be empowered to enact the statute under the Commerce Clause.
Morally, the importance of promoting the arts is salutory, but not at the core of the First Amendment. Even if there were no redeeming social value whatsoever to software content, the First Amendment does not permit government to regulate it (with exceptions not relevant here). The point is that it doesn't matter whether the Court believes the content is good, bad or ugly -- what matters is that it is expressive.
At the end of the day, it is for the marketplace of ideas, and not the government, to decide the worth and worthiness of expressive content.
This, to me, is the most important issue.
I think we all agree that Kaplan was nothing but a paid lackey for the MPAA.
Kaplan doesn't give a damn about the MPAA. I have yet to meet a Federal judge (and I know well over two dozen of them) who doesn't possess a remarkable degree of intransigence and stubbornness. These are not necessarily bad traits in a judge, by the by; you want a judge who is stubborn enough to stand his ground and decide things according to legal principle and the demands of justice, regardless of public opinion.
Brown v Board of Education was a tremendously unpopular decision in much of America, but the Supreme Court simply didn't care. Ditto with Roe v Wade, which to this day causes Supreme Court justices to get mailbags full of hate mail.
By and large, Federal judges cannot be "paid lackeys". A lackey is the inferior of, and subservient to, the person he serves. Federal judges possess such intransigence (and, some would argue, arrogance) that the only thing they consider themselves inferior of and subservient to are abstract notions like law, social justice, individual liberties and so on.
what happens to him then?
We send him lots of mail at his courthouse accusing him of being an intellectual coward who ought to step down from the bench to spare the Judiciary further humiliation. But guess what? That's our only recourse.
Was his decision wrong? Yes. Poorly reasoned? Yes. Was his decision so horrifically negligient as to rise to the level of an impeachable offense? Nope.
We want judges to possess near-ultimate judicial independence. Look at Judge John Sirica, who (some would argue) used sweeping and unprecedented powers of the judiciary to assist a grand jury in its investigation of the Watergate break-in. Nixon hated Sirica and probably spent every waking moment wishing Maximum John would get hit by a city bus.
Nixon challenged Sirica's legal authority both in Congress and in court. The Judiciary Committee refused to even consider impeaching Maximum John; while what Sirica had done was sweeping, it was far from impeachable. The Supreme Court refused to overrule Maximum John; while the Court agreed that Sirica was going like gangbusters, the Court said that Sirica was acting in accordance with the best traditions of the Federal Judiciary.
Now, if the President of the United States can't get rid of one single Federal judge, a judge who possesses lifetime tenure specifically so he can check abuses in other branches of government, do you really think you have any chance of getting Kaplan off the bench because he made a decision you don't like?
Do you mean: This& lt;/a>?
<BR><BR>
This was originally created for the Bernstein case mentioned in the Amicus brief.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
*grin* Anyone who has the balls to use examples from Star Trek or Perl code in a document to The Court is pretty cool in my book.
--
>Does English communication itself need actually make sense in order to be protected under the US Constitution?
;)
Nope, it doesn't.
>If I were to string words together without 'meaning' in its conventional sense because, say, I liked the way in which they sounded, would that be protected?
Yes. What you describe exists, Dadaism makes a lot of use of this. It's filled with nonsensical 'words', chosen for their sound(or even the way they look). I found this one quite a good example: Gedicht by Kurt SChwitters. (don't bother with the bable fish. The title means simply 'poem').
>If I were to write a long rant that was meaningless to the casual listener, would that be?
Yes. but why write rants in Welsh?
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Another interesting point is the claim that there is no distinct line between natural language (e.g., English) source code and object code. The example they use is a natural language processing system through which a computer takes actions based on spoken, conversational English. It is argued that that can be described as a form of source code. If the court decides to draw such a distinction, the lines are bound to become more fuzzy in the future.
If one form of language recieves protection, and another does not, this can get very sticky as technology improves.
It is sad that there is even any question about whether code is language. Can you imagine calculus without notation? Code is good for expressing certain kinds of ideas; English is good for expressing a different set of ideas; and French is better than English for expressing some ideas. Different cultures have different ideas about what is important and the language will reflect this.
This link should work better than the one at the top of the page.
It's a good brief, and it's especially worth reading if you think no lawyer can write anything except impenetrable jargon.
One of its great strengths is the way in which it tries to connect the subject of the case, First Amendment protection for source code, with things judges know about. Judges (and lawyers) for that matter tend to resist learning about technology. Even if they're willing, they have little opportunity. So you have to talk about it in the way they understand.
Early in the brief, we get a couple of lines of Visual Basic. They wouldn't do much in real life, but they illustrate the point. My favorite part of the brief is footnote 4, which compares source code to legal citation: each is impenetrable to outsiders, but each is a clean, compact, and efficient representation, which is transparent to people who speak the language.
The only thing that makes me sad is that I doubt the court will recognize the weight attached to the names on the brief. We all recognize names like Kernighan, Minsky, and Stallman but there's really no way to communicate that weight to an outsider. It's like those newspaper ads demanding that Mumia be released from jail and appointed dictator-for-life--there's lots of names signed at the bottom, and some of them are connected to impressive institutions, but I suspect that they're adjuncts, or junior assistant professors, or leaders of impressively-named organizations that don't do anything because these people invented them.
How can Linux video editing software advance, when the core of manipulating DVD, the Content Scrambling System, cannot legally be a part of it?
Yes, I fully support developing MPEG video codecs, non-linear editing software, etc.
I just don't support DVD!
www.eFax.com are spammers
I keep seeing people on /. saying "use package foo and bar to watch DVDs under Linux".
People, I feel this is the wrong approach. Until I can use software that has NO legal cloud over its head, I refuse to buy DVDs, DVD players or DVD drives.
One of my machines at home threw a CDROM drive night before last. I went to buy another. I had a simple choice: buy a 50x CDROM drive for $X, or buy a 16x DVD drive for 2*$X. The cost delta meant next to nothing to me - either was an incidental, "do you want fries with that" type of purchase. I waffled briefly over buying the DVD drive, then said to myself, "HELL NO! I am NOT going to give the MPAA any satisfaction on this. I WILL stick to my guns, and wait until the DeCSS is held to be completely legal before I buy a DVD. And if that day never comes, then I will never buy a DVD."
I don't want to come off as an extremist, but this is the BEST way we can make the MPAA change their tune: hit them in the ass pocket. Don't buy their crap. Don't give them money. Encourage your friends to do the same.
Just say NO!
www.eFax.com are spammers
You're probably thinking of White-Smith vs. Apollo, and if you are, your memory is wrong. The supreme court held that piano rolls were not covered by copyright. Obviously things are a little different today.
--
314-15-9265
While I agree whole-heartedly with the "code in any form is free speech deserving protection" argument, it's not the right approach to take on appeal. There are two more fundamental problems with the MPAA vs 2600 case that aren't even being addressed by this appeal.
Problem #1: You shouldn't be able to shut down or file suit against a web site simply because you don't like the material to which it links. Links are just a form of reference, and there is nothing illegal about making a reference to anything you want.
Problem #2: DeCSS was the result of legitimate reverse-engineering. The DMCA is inherently evil and unlawful because it removes what was a previously protected ethical right to reverse-engineer any product just by observing it or taking it apart.
This case is only about free speech as far as links are concerned. It is actually more concerned with the legality of reverse-engineering and the illegality of the DMCA.
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
Wow. They sure have a lot of academic weight behind this. I havn't seen so many doctors listed in one place since the time-share sales pitch in Orlando!
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
We cannot know what the court would have done had it been asked to enjoin a purely English narrative of the DeCSS source, but the note strongly suggests the court's willingness to do so. It is unfathomable that English prose could be a circumvention measure under the terms of DMCA, yet the court intimated that it might have so found. And if DMCA could be read to proscribe English as a circumvention measure, the Constitutional ramifications come into even sharper focus.
The brief in general culminates to this point, which is essentially that the Court enjoined speech to protect the interests of corporate money. Now even the most Republican judge will stop and pause before letting THAT slide. Despite the Republicans and the corporate leaders being age old bedfellows, they still have to face a certain degree of public review. And even the most average Joe Schmoe who couldn't understand the cake recipe, let alone a Perl program, will be able to understand that point. No American, no matter how Republican or right-wing (or Liberal or left-wing) is going to accept a courts decision to enjoin anything on the grounds of protecting corporate money. Ever. It's probably the one thing you can count on Americans to get angry about, actually. As long as the case continues to be presented in this light, the public support will ultimately fall on "our" side.
Very well reasoned and argued, as one would expect given the source.
Perhaps the most important quote:
That point cannot be made often enough. What the MPAA wants to do is use copyright in a way completely antithetical to the reason copyrights were granted to begin with.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Bravo to the amici curiae[?] for giving the court (or at least its clerks) such fine reading material!
This closing statement encapsulates the consequences of Kaplan's reasoning in his decision. The amici are not accusing him of being a tool, or they suggest that they hope he is not, but ascribe to him a form of intellectual cowardice. He was unwilling to face the consequences of a correct judgement on the facts.
illegitimii non ingravare
wow. this is a great example. blew me away.
4. If "$plain_text = $file_key ^ $xor_block" seems unapproachable, consider what those not trained in the language of legal citation would make of "111 F.Supp.2d 294, 326 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)." Each is meaningless to those unfamiliar with the language; but each is more precise and compact for those who do understand than would be an English narrative equivalent.
no
on this site is at:
http://cryptome.org/jg-wwwcp.htm
Great info on how the industry is working to stop digital reproduction rights.
If you're going to call someone a moron, check your spelling. Courts establish precedents, not precidents.
Although a court did establish our president, so if you were making a pun and not a misspelling, I applaud you.
(The laws of irony require that I made at least one spelling error in this, but I haven't found it yet)
Everything you've said could have been applied to CDs in 1984.
"Why do I want to listen to music on my computer? That's why I have a stereo."
"It's no big deal to store one little CD in my rack for when I want to listen to it."
Fair use is what enables you to make use of content for non-commercial purposes. It underlies everything from a college student's right to compile excerpts and bibilographies, to the recent judgement affirming your right to space-shift your music onto your Rio. The idea behind fair-use provisions is to limit unreasonable legal controls on your access to copyrighted material. Some of us think that the use of unreasonable mechanical controls should be limited as well, if the intent of the law is taken into consideration.
Your arguments amount to "I don't care about what rights you strip away, as long as I'm not using them at the time. Sounds like somebody else's problem." Wrong.
You're right, though, in that it's a real challenge to get the idea across to Joe Six-Pack.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Do you have an MP3 collection? A directory full of your favorite music in a single easily-accessible place that lets you determine how, when, and where you listen to it?
Would you like to be able to do the same with movies someday, when the necessary storage space is cheap enough?
I'd like to keep that ability (and the right to exercise it without becoming a criminal). And that's why I oppose access-control schemes of all types. They simply don't do a thing for me as a consumer.
I don't like to see the Federal legislative process brought to bear against my fair-use rights. Unless action is taken on consumers' behalf, the lawmaking-by-payola charade that brought us the DMCA will only get worse.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
And from the amici:
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Absolutely. Facts differ. When you read what Judge Kaplan wrote, you can see that the domain names that seem to advertise dvd copying figured prominently in the early going. THIS IS NOT AN ACCIDENT. He surely, deep down, believed that this was about piracy.
At that point, the case is virtually impossible to win. Why? Doesn't matter. The first child to kill his parents and then put his hand out for the inheritance certainly argued "Hey, I'm an orphan!" Despite whatever law was on the books, the trial judge probably said "too bad, you lose in my court, see if you can get your inheritance out of the court of appeals, but you won't get it out of me!"
It is virtually impossible to get a jury or a trial court to give you a win on bad facts. This guy did not take the job to promote injustice. Really. The bad-boy, geek-counter-culture thing did not help in conjunction with articles on the site about "hacking" and "copying dvds."
When he was an NAACP attorney, Thurgood Marshall turned away hundreds of cases of race discrimination because the facts were not perfect. He knew that the system was stacked against him, so he only took "perfect" cases. Why? Despite the justice he sought, he knew he had no margin of error in trying to move the precedent his way. Case 1, perfect. Case 2, next to perfect, case 3, a little less perfect maybe. Try to move the law by microns each case.
Despite what a later response says, I see no reason to believe that Judge Kaplan was really biased. Grandpa saw a would-be thief, and hammered him. It's that simple. If you were out of your technology curve, you might do the same thing if that was the story you understood.
Lemme tell you, you'd much rather have had an MIT researcher hauled in for publishing the results of his research on CSS in an academic journal than this case. MPAA would NEVER bring that case. Let's keep in mind here that the MPAA is not stupid, it chose this particular battlefield for a reason -- its a reasonably good one for them.
That said, there is still a chance that the Second Circuit will find the DCMA overreaching. The Second Circuit has tended to favor copyright in traditional (atoms) media, and disfavor it in new (bits) media. Cross you fingers.
Wait a minute let's get clear that there are two different kind of impacts.
Your father is dead right that in terms of the effect of the JUDGMENT, that only the parties are bound. That is, whether or not 2600 can put DeCSS on its web site is determined by the outcome of THIS CASE.
On the effect of PRECEDENT, that's part right. The trial judge's opinion has little precedential value. Some other trial judges might give it weight, or might not. Again, your father is right that it is not that big a deal for anyone else.
The place where this veers into the land of incorrectness is the impact that the APPEAL will have. This is to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. When the Second Circuit decides this case, that makes the law for all of the federal trial courts in the Second Circuit that includes NY. A federal trial judge in NY will look at the opinion and see one that he is bound to follow.
In addition, the Second Circuit is one of the most influential federal courts of appeal in the nation. Other federal trial judges and appellate judges, even those not bound to follow the Second Circuit, will be substantially influenced by the opinion.
In sum, now is when the rubber really hits the road. Walking away before this step was not a big deal to uninvolved people. Whatever happens with this appeal will have lasting effect on what others can expect when they walk into court.
You are in fact right that all this fuzz is about a silly, practically unreadable piece of pseudocode.
:-)
That makes a strong case for treating this as Free Speach (instead of treating this as a real Circumvention Device).
And secondly, it makes me wonder exactly how far the DMCA goes. I mean, the crypto community claims that the CSS system contains a lot of weaknesses for a crypto system. But the DMCA says it is a copy protection system and thus it may not be circumvented.
What if there was no real copy protection system at all? Would it be illegal to go out on the street say (or rather, post on your website) "hey, folks, you can just copy a DVD, takes no pain". Would that be considered harming a trade secret?
I'm sure judges would laugh their head off when the MPAA tries to sue someone for saying just that. But it's not substantially different. What I'm trying to say is that this DMCA stuff is bound to move the line that divides simple everyday knowledge and computer crime.
One of the results might be that hardcoded passwords and other idiotic "security measures" will be introduced into everyday systems because the companies developing it know that they can silence everyone that discovers their stupid code. That would mean to me that the world gets what it deservers, so I don't really fear this situation -- it would be heaven for those amongst us being a little bit less than avarage skilled in computers, right? So in fact it means, power to us -- and we never abuse our powers, do we?
But another result might be the trendy fear of "power to the industries". Which means they decide whether you can see your favourite movies or you have to watch those stupid commercials again. This isn't cool, but hey, it can get worse:
The worst result of all is, however, control of your knowledge. You will not be allowed to discover things that are meant to be "secret". One day they'll declare it to be a "secret" that you can also run Linux on Apple's latest hardware platform. They might even get so far that you'd have to pay $1 for an on-line service to change your desktop background in Windows, and that you'd have to pay Disney $1 extra if you used an image of Winnie the Pooh (whereas the original author of WtP doesn't get a nickel because they can't buy the law as Disney can), and you'd go into jail if you discovered how to put your own image there for free.
You may think I'm being ridiculous here, but again, it is not substantially different from the DVD case.
And slowly but gently we'd become a race of apathic zombies that gladly stick our heads in our asses if the brothers Warner ask us to do so.
No. Knowledge should always be freely spreadable. If you can do something yourself (playing DVD's, movies, music) and don't really need any external services for that (a "licenced DVDplayer", a bioscope, CD's), then you should never be forced to rely on the external services in any way. "We know what's good for you" has never been any good to me. Let the users decide. That's what they call "free market" and "democracy".
It's... It's...
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
I know exactly what you mean, but when I got my computer, I definately DID get a DVD rom with it. I did NOT, however, get an MPAA-sanctioned dvd DECODER card with it. Nor did I buy dvd decrypting software.
You see, the MPAA has nothing to do with a dvd rom. Suse linux comes on a DVD. Lots of data is stored on a data DVD. Now, if you buy a dvd decoder card, some money goes to the MPAA. But just a dvdrom is definately a useful adition to a computer.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
I was just listening to an MP3 of 'Off the Hook' from July- the 2600 radio show hosted by Corley. If you want more insight into this case (in a listenable format) download the MP3's from 2600.com - Interesting perspectives from before, during and after the case.
air and light and time and space
It doesn't matter. Basically you're saying that taking away decss impacts me indirectly. But only in that now decss is gone. I can still write my own decss (or hire someone to write it for me). The mpaa has to file suit to stop me. So while I may be delayed, there has been no relief granted against me, there is no reason I cannot have and use a decss until the mpaa comes after me.
A law has no impact on me unless it has executive backing (in this case the willingness of the mpaa to file suit against individuals) which isn't done by the judicial branch (and so this court case cannot grant relief against me). I stand by my first statement, let the court interpret the constitution any rotten way they want. They only take away decss, not my ability to generate my own decryption.
The most important piece of insight about court cases came from my dad (a lawyer) a few weeks back.
:-)
He pointed out that, when all is said and done, only two parties (the plaintiff and the defendant) are impacted by a court decision. It is in fact meaningless to everyone else. They can interpret the Constitution any rotten way they want, but only two parties are impacted. I bring this up, because at first I thought this kind of crap (banning DeCSS) was going to make being a programmer (my beloved profession) insufferable in 15 years. But it won't, cause the court is only one arm of the government, and is no more or less corrupt than any other. Witness, the election, sure we were impacted because we may care who the president is, but only Bush and Gore were able to receive relief. In this case only MPAA receives relief (though they don't deserve it). Every other piece of code that breaks the DMCA has to have an injunction brought against it as well. This does not stop you from hacking other copy encryptions (even CSS), it just stop DeCSS. Let them ban it, maybe I'll start my own CSS decryption project and they'll have to come after me. Then you write your own, and they come after you. It still doesn't matter. Trials only affect two parties.
And thank goodness I might add, otherwise I might of sat up nights worrying (and I used to think about this kind of stuff alot) about something as insignificant as the judicial branch.
The link you are looking for would be cryptome.org
The anti-salmon
I think the real problem is that not very many people are informed about what the MPAA is doing and what we can do about it....That is why I got the anti dvdcca shirt and the got decss shirt from copyleft. I get extremely strange looks in the halls, and when people question me about the shirt, I am able to tell them about the oppression from the MPAA and about decss and why source code is free speech and such things..I think if anything is going to be done, we need to get the word out.
want to see the shirt in action? go here
The anti-salmon
.... indeed, Kaplan's original judgement said so, at length. The point at issue is how much the 1st amendment actually protects.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
What about the US Constitution? Doesn't it allow just that?
As noted further:
This point is not only important, but has a broader relevance on other technology issues, such as the the push to leave out technology options for recording, time-shifting, etc.The case continues to have a wider importance then we first imagined.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
This is not different from how such trailers are presented on analog media. Is there a fast-forward feature that at least cuts the sound and reduces viewing time by at least half?
This is in no way meant to be argumentative. I will not buy a DVD player as long as they have things like "Region Coding" and don't do useful stuff like record TV shows, so I have no experience with the devices.
I do not have a signature
In the brief there is a discussion of the differences (or lack thereof) between source code and natural language. What if someone were to make a compiler that would compile simple computer instructions written in English into C source code or an executable? Then you could write whatever software you want and since it is English it would be easier to defend as free speech. Just make the rules for the English that the compiler would accept very rigid so there is no ambiguity.
In the U.S., it is actually a point of law that any judge is able to rule on any subject (law students may know the case that affirmed this). This means a judge that has no agricultural background can rule on agricultural cases, those with no science background can rule on scientific cases, etc, and that a judge who can't turn on a computer can rule on computer issues. This is necessary (should a case not be tried due to a lack of "expert" judges in a district?), but annoying, resulting in judges issuing decisions that make us shake our heads in confusion.
Because judges are often not experts, they require a case be argued in terms of earlier cases, or rely on expert witnesses. Often, the defendant who "looks better" in the eyes of the law will have "better" expert witnesses and present "more convincing" previous cases to base decisions. A corporation's lawyers will often look better than lawyers representing a hacker's magazine.
For this reason, Amicus Briefs that are as clear as this one are very important. This lets a judge hear what the real experts think, and even confirm the briefs with outside sources.
Of course, it would also help to create a new degree, comp-sci-law, so that all programmers are also lawyers. That way, we can argue these kinds of cases on equal footing, and we make money whichever way a case goes. Maybe a few of us would make it into Congress as well...
We're already there. The lawyers are now telling Prof. Ed Felton of Princeton him that he can't release his promised details on what was wrong with the SDMI watermarking systems, because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Wake up people.
The URL for the Gallery is cited in the amicus brief. I'm proud to point out that among the co-sponsors of this brief there are four Carnegie Mellon faculty, including the dean of the School of Computer Science. MPAA has been keeping a hands-off attitude toward the Gallery, perhaps because they realize how bad it would look if they tried to censor an academic work.
Now we just have to hope that the appeals court can connect enough brain cells to comprehend it.
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Back in the early 80's, when HBO was broadcast through the air, the entertainment industry said it was illegal to make your own antenna, but it wasn't. Then they scrambled the signal and told people it was illegal to unscramble it, but it wasn't. Now they are telling people it is illegal to decode some bytes on a disk. It isn't.
The only way the industry was able to make TV scrambling stick was with 2-way communication between the home receiver and the transmitter, because circumventing that system requires sending a fraudulent (illegal) signal to the transmitter. To protect DVDs they will have to force develop a similar system whereby the player must get a new decryption key from the movie company every time you play the DVD. For now they are merely using their time-honored tactic of legal intimidation until the necessary technology comes online. The really significant battle will be between entities like the MPAA and the DVD player manufacturers who decide not to go along. Whoever has the best lawyers will win. Ask OJ.
Okay, your replies are well advised - but Perl and BASIC have the advantage of being fairly static (ahem wrt Perl) and easy to parse - in the sense that if you give a computer with an interpreter/compiler (yes, another program) a syntactically valid Perl/BASIC program, it should function with very high probability (unless the compiler's broken.)
Now take a spoken language; (yes, this is going to be a different argument with little bearing on the previous post...) it's not well-defined what writing a compiler/interpreter that will act meaningfully on *any* syntactically valid English statements. Where by meaningful, I mean even a program that would print "accept" for valid sentences and "reject" for invalid ones. Spoken language is (mostly) less static than (currently) machine-readable language.... and... err... more ambiguous...
On further reflection though, I guess it just won't be long until English is source. Ah well. Then we'll need the "Talking to your Computer for Dummies(TM)" series of books.