Slashdot Mirror
USA Gov. Brief in MPAA vs. 2600 case Online
The U.S. Government plans to enter the MPAA vs. 2600 case on the side of the movie studios, arguing in court that the District Court's injunction against distribution of or linking to DeCSS was correct and that the Court of Appeals should not overturn it. The legal brief the government filed is available, as are some news stories. In general, the government supports all of Judge Kaplan's "best" positions in his decision: linking is not speech, linking is equivalent to distributing banned content yourself, etc.
This is what happens when you install a man with a cabbage for a brain as President.
Hey, don't blame Americans. We didn't elect him.
We will end up with a new def. of what free speech is.
and anyway, if free speech isn't linking, then all one needs to do is list the entire source code in on a web page. If that isn't free speech then I think the printed media would be in an uproar.
Food for through, neh?
You damn, dirty, ape!
Not even if I show them this:c ss.html
http://people.a2000.nl/mwielaar/dvd-css/csspaper/
The Cryptanalysis of Contents Scrambling System paper by Frank A. Stevenson
Apparently were not too far from this:
4 fa94-003d9000
http://www.segfault.org/story.phtml?mode=2&id=39b
They would consider it harmful speech and would limit it. The first amendment, although it says the freedoms should not be abridged, is sometimes disregarded if the government defines it as harmful, and since they see it as affecting an industry, they might say it is harmful, and they will likely try to argue against it in the same ways the RIAA argued against Napster, that it is being used for illegal purposes. This should seem rather absurd that this is considered harmful speech, but that is likely the argument that will be used.
if you can't link, type. the act of linking COULD be considered "equivalent to distributing banned content yourself" since in a way, it's aiding & abeting (i.e. if i tell you where you can get drugs, it's legal; if i take you there, it's ILLEGAL).
so if that's illegal, then don't use a hyperlink. people can copy & paste text links into their browser. this is an easy one to get past, should tick off the MPAA something nice, and will probably fall under free speech since this time, it's simply information.
You'd think this would be a perfect case for the ACLU to take up because the DMCA does, indeed, restrict civil liberties, and they pledge to uphold the constitution yet they let such a blatant violation of the first amendment go unopposed. I really think that while restricting material goods might be legitimate, the restricting of information is wrong, and very much unconstitutional. I just hope that if they are able to restrict the DeCSS source, that it gets posted on servers in Russia, China, and wherever else it can without the big business of the US stepping in to force it to be taken down. Maybe it seems like I'm contradicting myself, but I could accept restricting information on things such as how to build bombs because those are of use only to harm, but that's a far cry from restricting the distribution of the DeCSS source. This is wrong no matter how you look at it.
Most people shot with guns die
That is blatantly false.
Most people shot with guns do NOT die...
The mortality rate for gunshot victims is fairly low.
The amateurish "according to my reading of the Constitution" analysis of people who don't know shit about the case law is embarrassing
But isn't that exactly the problem? If what it says is no longer what it means, we've already strayed too far. If our "unalienable" rights have become malleable, they're not exactly unalienable, are they?
1st Law Of Networking: Loose ends are bad, termination is good.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Isn't the bottom line here simply this - WE'RE SCREWED AND THERE IS NOTHING *WE* CAN DO ABOUT IT.
The corps have the one advantage they need: Most people don't give a RATS ASS about the MPAA/DVDCCA's scheme, let alone even BEGIN to understand it. Remember folks, *WE'RE* in the minority.
If I'm wrong on this, flame my ass. If there is something *WE* can do, please enlighten me. BUT, don't give me some long rant on free speech and the size of your penis. Give me a real answer. What can I, Joe Schmuck Anybody, REALLY do about this?
Word!
--
Kir
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
If it's not available in source-code form, then it is not available "for Linux". It may be available for some subset, like Linux/i386, but not for Linux in its entirety.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
While I'm not a fan of guns myself, I'm doubtful of this datum. I'm not sure whether or not it's true, but would be interested in a reference.
(pause)
Well, on second thought, the statement is undoubtedly true in a very large sense, since everyone dies eventually... but did you mean the inference that the gunshots wounds are the cause of death?
If Billy-boy really wanted this done under his administration, it would have been done then. There's a new twit in town now and he gets the ALL the blame for this.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That doesn't really matter.
The court and the DOJ doesn't give a damn about reality. They're only concerned with their own paranoia and bigotry.
Show them OMS and Xine and they will still try to claim that DeCSS is 'just a cracking tool'.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Actually, there are plenty of films that are only available in their original form (widescreen) on DVD. Plus, the "extra stuff" alone is enough to warrant archival access to DVDs. It's "new" copyrighted material that's also typically not available elsewhere.
One has to wonder if these "defenders of Law and Order" even ever actually USED these technologies.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
OTOH, one CAN turn back the tide.
Old precedents CAN be overturned.
Common law is not a thing written in stone. This can be as much a savior as much as it is a destroyer.
The law can move 'back' as well as move 'forward'.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
BULLSHIT!
Tell me where I might acquire this player.
I can get OMS and Xine today and play DVD's.
This LinDVD is just vaporware. Can you even get it from any OEMs? Or are they just as much of a myth as LinDVD itself.
Furthermore, there is more than just ONE variant of Linux. There is Sparc, PPC, Alpha and others. Will Intervideo be providing players for those Linxuen as well.
Livid and others have had imminent threat of legal action hampering their efforts. Yet despite of that they have managed to get their DVD player out to the community in less time than a well funded authorized licencee of DVD technology.
Until LinDVD is playing encrypted DVDs on MY system, it's just a smokescreen.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Rental in general is no shakey ground.
However, resale NEVER has been. Just go into an EB Boutique. They would never traffic in used PC software unless they were VERY sure they could get away with it.
Also, there are stronger consitutional grounds for supporting First Sale doctrine that aren't merely limited to the Copyright act. This legal language remains as something that could suddenly overturn much of the abuse that has been perpetuated in intellectual property lately.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
There is no DVD version of TPM.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I would suggest we all get off our collective ass and write our congress members. (And if you are not part of the "collective ass" then have no fear. You will be assimilated.) While e-mail and websites rarely get their attention, handwritten letters from constituents often do get read. I intend to put up a form letter on my website pretty soon.
Of course, you could actually support the legal battle by donating to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (your money will go straight to the appeal team), or you could support me personally by buying one of my t-shirts (your money will go straight to me). Mainly, you should read some of the primary documents (like Kaplan's decision) and write a well constructed letter to your Congressional representatives. If we can't show the courts how unconstitutional this bill is, we can at least show Congress what a bad idea it is.
Can you spot the shameless plug in this post?
--
--
(sourceCode == freeSpeech)
Even closer still is:
I point to something, "It is over there". Information, pure and simple.
Going there should not be illegal either, unless you download illegal things there.
I'm free to attend public sales, but I should not buy things there that I believe are stolen, because that is illegal.
-The finger that points to the moon is not the moon...
--Fac Iustum Nec Time-- --Veritas Prevalibit--
Sure, but at that time businesses were individuals. The (stupid imho) concept of corporations getting effectively permanent charters and civil liberties was totally alien. That didn't come along until the late 19th century, and hasn't looked like much of a good idea since, either.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Actually Chances to die when hit by a nuke is much higher than dying after being hit by a Smith&Weson.
But recently more people died of guns than of nukes.
Nevertheless, I would like to finally remove the ban on thermonuclear handgrenades for selfdefence. They are pretty cool, you can throw them 50m and they have a deathrange of 5km. Believe me, one or two of those get crime out of town easily.
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
Forward in time ...
Lawyer rings. "Remove your link to Illegal in USA immediately." "Sir, we don't link there. Please check your browser proxy settings and disable proxy." ...
"Weird, now it shows it as text: http://outside_usa.com/illegal_in_usa.html (Illegal in USA). What happened?"
We know of course what is going on in above case.. Of course I'm assuming that mentioning places in newspaper and web will remain legal ;-)
When do 'authorities' learn that you can just use plain English also? Of course in many cases it's not as easy to read for humans :-(
There will be no such thing in the future as fair use. No such things as time shifting. We will be in a society such that people will not be able to record there favorite show any more. All content will will be control in how long and how much you can view it. hmmm Well this is not what I want to see happen in the future.
BTW, we started to lose our freedoms in 1861 when Lincoln decided that states didn't have the right to secede.
Right. This is why I've found the phrase "The Right to Secede" to be of some value. Of course, many people still have a knee-jerk reaction when they hear this but at least a few people here and there realize that I'm not a racist when I say it.
Right. But what I'm saying is that the government views protection of business as one of their primary duties--and what they are doing now isn't so much that they just "like the rich" as that they are doing what they think they are supposed to be doing. They see this as an extension of trying to protect a small-time business from robbery or vandals or whatever.
I know, of course, that there is a lot of corruption in our government; but I think that in this case, the DoJ really thinks they are defending a lawful business being attacked by pirates. If what you say about the DoJ is true, why did they go up against M$?
Sorry, buddy. Circumventing copy protection is illegal under the DMCA.
That is called civil disobedience, and it has been shown to change law. However, civil disobedience also implies that you face the consequences of breaking the law -- otherwise, you're just using it as an excuse to break the law.
That may be what he said later, but DeCSS was written for windows because it was mostly the original program just disassembled.
It was partially based off of LiViD code and a copy of the source was give to the writter of cssauth, Derek Fawcus. It was mentioned on LiViD that code to decrypt CSS now existed, and a link to a ftp site was posted.
That ftp site, if one explored, had a copy of the source for the first hour or so, then it was pulled. About 10 people or so downloaded a copy of the source code. No one would publish it, due to the fact that it was clearly ripped from the windows player and they were worried about legal problems.
Derek said he would rewrite the code, so a clean room implimentation would be available as well as adding a couple more features. He, unfortunitly, had to deal with some personal engagments and after a considerable bit of time still no code was available. Finally, someone anonymously posted the code to LiViD. 2 days later CSS was completly defeated.
So it was LiViD who wanted the linux player, DeCSS was written because someone thought it would be cool to do so. Just like Drink or Die's earlier descrambler, neither really did much other then say "We are smarter then you" to the entire DVD industry.
Oh, and http://www.glue.umd.edu/~castongj/
New worlds are not born in the vacuum of abstract
New worlds are not born in the vacuum of abstract
ideas, but in the fight for daily bread --Rudolf Rocke
If I happen to find a video store selling illegal "home movies" of the sort you seem concerned with, and I stand outside pointing to the store saying "This place is selling Kiddie Porn!" - am I distributing it? Of course not, I'm merely providing a reference pointer - my index finger combined with speech - that points to the relevant location. Furthermore, the video store may remove the offending content while I continue my pointing and shouting. Now, am I even pointing to a location offering illegal content? Nope, their content has changed and is no longer legally questionable! My pointing at this time is out of sync with my target and therefore invalid.
If you've used the Internet long, you undoubtedly have encountered exactly this situation. You search on Google or the like, and click upon the URLs returned, only to find some are no longer valid - the destination they once pointed to no longer exists.
For this reason alone, although their may be many others, your implication that linking is a form of distribution is just plain wrong. Nothing is being distributed - nothing is ever in the possession of the linking site - the link is dynamic in that the location it points to can change at any moment, or many times from moment to moment.
No sir... Linking is merely the equivelent of standing on a corner and telling a passerby to "head down this street 3 blocks (pointing say, south) and take a left on Central Street, the 4th building on the right is the Post Office." Again, nothing is distributed (with the exception perhaps of information/knowledge), only a pointer to a potentially relative location is provided.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
It was originally written for Windows because the UDF filesystem was not fully supported under Linux at the time. The goal was to provide a Linux DVD player.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
So you are telling us that this is vaporware. Why not just release it? The linux community can deal with code that *not finished* 8)
I think this is just a plant to bolster the case against 2600. Yes, another conspiracy...
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
Shouldn't that be 'more signal and less noise'?
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
Agreed, but I want to add one little thing. The plugins should not "plug in to" the vob players themselves. They should plug into the OS, at the filesystem level.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Yep, it's one of my favourite movie lines....
Ironic, especially when you find out more about Verbal towards the end of the movie....
(trying not to spoil the plot here)
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
It didn't teach me encryption, I'm familiar with is principles from doing Condition Access Teletext and other stuff, but it advanced my state of knowledge, which is all that is required.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Yes, Frank A. Stephensons papers/webpages on DeCSS were read extremely avidly by me. They were a great help to advancing my state of knowledge.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The USA needs an admendment that extends the issues of free speech to prevent corporations from silencing free speech.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Saying the 'criteria is intent' means we're talking about a thought-crime. Those are pretty tough to enforce, you know, so the courts set a harsh precedent for the first big case to come along, then 'interpret' that precedent a little more reasonably when they feel like it.
IANAL, of course. So take this with a grain of salt.
It's not defending the legislation, it's defending the MPAA's interpretation thereof. It's disappointing because despite what the DMCA claims, they are trying to destroy fair use.
This is just the sort of ridiculous position I've come to expect from the US government, and with Bush in office I'm sure we can expect alot more "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" play with big corps. It wouldn't be so bad except the WTO wants to impose US trade policies, patents, and rules on everyone else in the world too. Any other geeks up for buying an island and forming our own country? *g*
- Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.
Actually It has alot to do with the First Amendment. They may not be able to stop 2600 magazine from publishing what they do(until they figure out how to get rid of that irritating constitution) but they can certainly use it as a judgement against their moral character pertaining to anything else they can get 'em on. If the defendants look like bad guys to the general public then they must be bad guys.
- Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.
If I understand what these lawyers are saying, they want the linkers to have the same classification as those who publish the media they are linking to.
If slashdot linked to a piece of media that was later found to be unlawfull, could slashdot then be sued for "distributing" that content?
They are not distributing anything from making a link, they are simply showing them the path to find what they want.
The linking site is not a middle man(distributor), since the content never passes through them. They are a guide that shows them where to get it.
Eg: I am sitting on a corner. Someone comes up to me and asks me where to score some crack(just example), and knowing all about it, I tell him the best damn dealer in town. Am I to be arrested for trafficing crack? Hell no, and neither should linkers for showing people the way.
Bye!
How interesting. If you ask me "where can I buy some crack?" and I refer you to the crack dealer down the street, have I committed a crime?
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
Whataminute. All this DeCSS controversy and the MPAA and the RIAA and whatnot all started within the last eight years. The government intervention IN THOSE CASES was under the Clinton Watch. Mary Jo White (the US Attorney who filed the amicus curiae brief we're all upset about) was a Clinton appointee.
W's been in office for exactly 1 month, and this stuff has been brewing for several years.
Whose fault is all this, again? Oh, yeah -- the Republicans. That's right.
If you'd like to contact Mary Jo (especially if you are from "the southern district of New York) try:
Mary Jo White
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Attorney for Intervenor United States of America.
100 Church Street, 19th Floor
New York, New York 10007
(212) 637-2741
This seems like something that would be perfect to put together through a book-on-demand publisher such as Xlibris. For the most basic level of service, they don't charge anything to print a book that can then be bought directly from them or ordered through any bookstore. Funnel the royalties to EFF or whoever and it could end up serving two purposes: (1) getting DeCSS into dead-tree format and (2) put some money in the coffers of a worthy cause.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Maybe, but there's this little piece of paper called the Constitution that prohibits what you describe. What's really needed is for voters to not be so ignorant and unthinking, and to examine what the politicians are really saying. Yes, it's probably a tall order to think everybody will see through the guff spewed by the likes of Dick Gephardt and Ted Kennedy, but trashing the Constitution is definitely not the way to go.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
*chuckle*
*grin*
Um...... No, forget it.
Female Prison Rape in NY
The US Government is going to stridently defend CopyRights, Patents, and any other form of Intellectual Property lawyers can dream up. With all of the "well-heeled" owners of IP out there screeming that the sky is falling, which it very well may be for purveyors of IP, most Politicians seeking campaign funds will reflexively rush to their "rescue". I do not expect any Congress or Court in this country to even contemplate the original intent of CopyRight Law...
"...to promote Creativity and Authorship by securing FOR A LIMITED TIME the distribution rights..."
Heck, the last Congress EXPANDED CopyRight periods mainly to rescue the USA's beloved Micky Mouse from going Public Domain! We can rest assured that IP Law is illegitemate because Creativity and Authorship are freqently SUPPRESSED by IP Law.
I have one suggestion for this Micky Mouse Country we happen to call the USA... <B>BOYCOTT!</B> Say goodbye HollyWood, you may be enjoying victory on the Battlefield - but you've lost the war because you are now my enemy and I happen to hold your purse strings! No more movies for me - my last theater visit was over 1 year ago. No DVDs either - I don't even own a player although I was tempted to purchase an APEX. No more music CDs, and definately NO Cable Television. I won't do Windoz either - Thank You GNU/Linux!
The Legal Battlefield may be important, but the Marketplace is now the venue of choice for this battle. We need to get IP alternatives in front of consumers so that the public is aware of this important choice. We need to have more people clicking on "I DO NOT AGREE". We need to force perveyors of IP to provide "I DO NOT AGREE" alternatives. And we could use a strong punative class action lawsuit that punishes perveyors of IP for forcing consumers to sholder the responsibility of protecting IP. We need a boilerplate contract consumers can use to eviscerate this burden. I can hardly contain my excitement at the prospect of introducing a dozen pages of dense leagalese into my next "Purchasing Negotiation"! This IS the new battleground: "Purchasing Negotiations!"
Am I a Luddite?? Say what you want, but I'm out to keep my money away from perveyors of Proprietary Information - AND IT HAPPENS TO BE MY MONEY!
oh....my!
Well, as long as candidate will need to run *billion* dollar advertisement campain to stand a chance to win, they'll need money, and they'll have to give something in return for all this money.
Maybe it's time to do like many other country are doing and ban political commercials on TV or in the press. That would force candidate to gain votes on their real merit (gasp!) and would drastically cut their need for money, hence boosting their independance.
Of course that would mean cutting medias incomes, and since the medias also paid for the politicians that are in place right now...
Hug, I don't know what in the Constitution prevent banning political paid advertisement (not speech, there's a huge difference). You can't advertise cigarets in teenagers magazine, and so far it doesn't restrict Philip Morris speech rights. There's a big difference between advertisement and free speech.
That's illegal you know. They are required to respond.
I should know, I have a stack of replies from Warner, Boucher, & Rob (VA)
:)
--Remove chicken to e-mail
In further news, the publishers of the White Pages in thousands of cities nationwide were added to the list of defendents, since their published phone books list the telephone numbers of many of the ISP's who have been known to host the aforementioned DeCSS files. Film at 11.
- Mike
Intervideo will most likely not support their product on Alpha's, Sun's, PPC's, and the other architechtures Linux runs on. Eliminating Linux because there is an Authorized Player still leaves other systems. Net BSD, Solaris, GNU/Hurd, and any other system you might possibly want DVD capabilities on. The arguement still holds that there will not be an authorized player for everyplatform that it's wanted on.
treke
Yes, it is. Under the 2.4 kernel.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
People have been linking to "questionable"/illegal things for years. How could this judge decide that the linking is now illegal?
"Computer code is not purely expressive any more than the assassination of a political figure is purely a political statement," Kaplan wrote in his opinion today.
Does this mean that people that write computer code kill people to make political statements?
For all I know copy machines are next on the list of devices that are helping people to break copyrights, and they will be ruled illegal.
The people just don't get it. The market has speoken. The market has proven they are not providing a good service at a decent price to everybody.
If they record companies produced a quality cd at a decent cost (not $16 to $20), then Napster would not have taken off so quickly. If the company that holds the encryption on DVDs had provided a free linux DVD player so we watch our LEGALLY PURCHASED DVD movies on our machines, then their problems wouldn't be so bad.
We are supposed to live in a society where the market decides. That is BS. When the BIG Companies don't get their way and the market decides to go another way, the run crying to the government saying they need help to make the market go the way they want!
These stupid, overpaid, cry babies just don't get it. You haven't provided your services at decent prices and decent quality. Piracy increases the more the market, and consumer, decide the product they want is not being provided at a good enough price and/or quality.
They need to stop their crying and start producing a better product at a better price. Then a lot of the piracy will disappear! Their will always be piracy to a degree. The amount of piracy can be used to measure how satisfied the consumers are with the products and services being sold to them.
If you look at it that way, then the consumers are obviously telling the industry that their performance sucks!
SO, IF ANY MPAA OD RIAA PEOPLE ARE READING THESE THINGS, GET OFF YOU FAT, OVERPAID, CRY BABY BUTTS AND START PRODUCING A BETTER PRODUCT AT A BETTER PRICE. YOU WILL LOSE IN THE END IF YOU TRY TO LEGISLATE WHAT CONSUMERS SHOULD WANT! START DOING YOUR JOB AND STOP OVERCHARGING!
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
If you yell fire in a crowded theatre and everyone runs for their lives because they think they're going to die and people get killed/injured, you've just tricked a few hundred people into getting themselves hurt. If, however, there really IS a fire, then you haven't broken the law.
If what you are saying isn't true and people get hurt because of it, then you're responsible. If what you are saying IS true, then that's freedom of speech.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Why the fuck does the US Gov. feel the need to step in here? And why the hell are they trying to help out the MPAA? That is absolutely ridiculous, linking is OBVIOUSLY just speach, it doesn't directly cause any damage, and the DMCA (which this whole damn case is based on!) is OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional! This is absolutely insane!
The DMCA has got to go.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
One of the most frequently used tactics in litigation in this country is to keep the other guy in court till he runs out of money.
So I would say it's more like Liberty and Justice for the rich.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre creates an immediate danger(possibly life threatening) to the people there and is therefore not free speech. Linking to a site containing illegal content does not create an immediate danger, someone else has to act on it to cause damage. Further, the damage that can be caused is monitary, and has in no way even been shown to be true that damage actually could be caused and therefore the ruling was completely wrong.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
CSS is not a copy protection system, it is a region control system (which the legality of is questionable in many areas).
DeCSS allows you to view the mpeg data in unencrypted form. You CAN use this to copy the mpegs, but then you have 4 GIGS of mpegs, there's a lot more you have to do for this to be useful for piracy. There are also MANY other ways of doing this, and there are also MANY other uses for DeCSS.
DeCSS is NOT a piracy tool, not even close.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I shout when I want to be heard IRL, I'll shout here too if I feel like it.
Are you are a complete moron to think what I said invalidates copyright in any way, it's just not constitutional in it's current form, especially with the DMCA.
If the length of copyright is anywhere near as long as the average lifespan(which it is) that is in effect not a limited time and therefore unconstitutional.
If copyright is used for any other purpose but to promote progress then it is unconstitutional. Copyright is being used to make as much money as possible for the copyright holder, and therefore unconstitutional. There is a balance somewhere that needs to be met, but that's not what it's aiming for anymore.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The courts have been misled very easily in this case. The MPAA says, "No, it's copy protection, and DeCSS is a pirate tool, who are you going to believe, us, we're all rich, or those hackers?" and the court says, "We don't like hackers, in fact, we don't like intelligent people at all, in fact, we've been bought buy people like the MPAA for a long time now and we like it, why stop now. Ok Mr Hacker people, you suck, we don't like you, you lose."
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
That's also true. They don't want unauthorized players on the market, otherwise they may not implement Macrovision, forced viewing of "FBI warnings", and commercials etc..
I mean shit, it would be just horrible if a player allowed for fair use!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It seems like the government finds new ways to waste money every day. Spending it attacking the personal liberties of the citizens funding the government had got to be the lamest waste of all.
Is there some way to sure the feds for flushing money down the toilet on stupid stuff like this?
LinDVD is vaproware! I've been to CeBIT last year. I was told they were going to release it soon. Like in April or May. This CeBIT they'll probably say that they will release it real soon. Yeah sure!
I imagine the CSS license prohibits this. But what is the penalty for violating the license, and is it as onerous as the DMCA itself? And does the CSS license override the copyright holder's right to grant permission to circumvent protection on his own work?
Just wondering...
Edith Keeler Must Die
This leads to the curious conclusion that a DVD may be copied ad infinitum, but infringment only occurs when the code on a DVD copy is executed to produce images and sounds.
Interesting...
Edith Keeler Must Die
Seriously, though, I think the requirement is that the party being infringed upon needs to send a letter in writing [snail mail] to the infringing site stating that they have a link to an illegal program and that they must remove it or they will be shut down. Once the site is aware of it (as in 2600's case) they need to follow through and remove the link or face legal action. Because of the written letter part, search engines can remove that site if required.
Don't quote me on legal mumbo jumbo tho - I sold my soul to a company, not the devil (I'm a programmer, not a lawyer :)
Funny. I always thought of CSS as a _player_ protection system. So that the big-dollar movie industry can have monopoly on the players (or authorization thereof) _and_ their films.
IMHO, the MPAA is the real criminals in this case.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
If the core fundamental defense of 2600 is the fact that DeCSS is a player for Linux boxes and no player has been provided by the industry, then why are the exceptions in the DMCA not applied here? Please note exception #3: "The DMCA provides several exceptions to these prohibitions. The statute permits an individual to circumvent an access control on a copyrighted work, or, in limited circumstances, to share circumvention technology: (1) in order for a school or library to determine whether to purchase a copyrighted product; (2) for law enforcement purposes; (3) to achieve interoperability of computer programs; (4) to engage in encryption research; (5) as necessary to limit the internet access of minors; (6) as necessary to protect personally identifying information; or (7) to engage in security testing of a computer system. See 17 U.S.C. 1201(d)-(j). Am I way off base in thinking the DMCA actually helps 2600's case? D
I'm stuck with Goodlatte. I tried talking to him after the "townhall" meeting he hosted in Harrisonburg, VA and he instantly said that anyone against it believes in copyright infringement (believe me, I'm not quoting him exactly... I'm putting a lot of sugar-coating on what he really said!). He claims to be one of the guys behind the DMCA. How's that for you? Your congressman is one of the guys who not only drafted it, but also is PROUD of it!!!!!! Ranting and raving aside I would like to see more people come out against it and be called communists. I believe in quite little corporate regulation with the exception of four areas: minimum wage and associated legislation, environmental regulation, lemon laws and the like and of course no corporate/labor union contributions to politics, etc. Yet people like my congressman don't want to see that I am far more capitalist than they. In fact I think it scares them. I think it all comes down to this simple concept: the majority strongly support copyright law, just not strong copyright law. People should get paid for their artistic works, but people... the notes from the founding fathers are in the public domain... they give us a clear and succint idea of what they intended copyright to be and what we have is almost 180 degrees away from what they intended!
What's really scary about that, for me, is the component bit. Does that mean that any component that could be used in a "circumvention device" (following from the idea that DeCSS is illegal because it could circumvent) is illegal?
-RickHunter
Plus, it is now becoming very hard to find subtitled anime on anything but DVDs. Or fansubs, although most fansubbing organizations won't distribute something that's been acquired by a commercial company. The upside is that anime DVD companies are a bit better than others - they use less of the nasty-DVD-powered-tricks, as they know what kind of people most anime fans are and what they want from their technology.
(Well, some anime fans just want giant mecha from their technology, but I digress.)
So, yes, there are things that are effectively only available on DVD. And this isn't even considering the eventual "well, there's 'no market' for VHS stuff anymore, so we're going to drop it or release it six months after the DVDs..." situation that's bound to spring up.
-RickHunter
I may not know the law, but I at least know the history.
Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those that do know me, DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me.
All my trolls are belong to us!
Take this personaility test.
all your guns are belong to us!
Take this personaility test.
all your cabbage are belong to us!
Take this personaility test.
vich country are you froom? is it ze stinky one or the convict one or the spanky spanky one?
Take this personaility test.
Isn't most of the content in 2600 pretty useless anyway? I remember skimming a new issue a year or two ago and coming accross an article about how to take over IRC channels. The author's methods were perfectly sound in 1995. Unfortunately the article was being published in 98 or 99 by which point the information was entirely obsolete.
Yeah, trust busting!
That's JUST the sort of activity I can see Dubya engaing in! Why I bet that good ol' boy with most of his money tied up in big oil has got all KINDS of trust busting plans up his sleeve!
Well obviously.
I'm just saying that the cries of "2600 is for HACKERS!" can actually be proven to be bullshit if the information in the magazines is mostly useless.
Is this a Bush administration initiative or was the filing planned before his election?
The first update seems to be dated the beginning of February with the addition of Mr. Daniel S. Alter (Esq.!!!!!!) so it would seem to me that this is a Bushism. A very alarming Bushism considering Bush had been in power for less than a month on 2/8. This is at the top of the administration's priority list in the first month?
If this is the case, then we have definite evidence of what four years of Bush are going to bring us - government siding with corporate interests at the expense of everything else. Way to go...
In this issue, the big mistake is drawing an equivalence between copyright (the right to manufacture copies of a work) and access right (the right to access/view a copy of the work). In the cited brief, the author(s) bandy the two concepts about interchangably.
Does the law of the land still maintain the logical distinction between the act of creating a copy and the act of access? ...or is reading a memo the same as making a photocopy in the eyes of the law?
-Eldurbarn
Thanks.
Salocin.com
Why do you need DeCSS to copy a DVD? I was under the impression that any licensed DVD player could do the work of DeCSS, and that therefore all you needed to do was copy it - encrypted byte for encrypted byte, and then run it through another DVD player and voila!
So I thought that DeCSS was a "viewer-enabler" but not a copying system.
The court obviously doesn't agree with me and I can't figure out why not - either I have the technology wrong or I've misunderstood what the court's argument is - how is CSS a copy-protection system?
Salocin.com
More importantly, if you know why VValdo's wrong, chime in!
Yes, there would be an argument. Go after the people posting illegal content, not those who announce where to find it. Speech is one of the most difficult freedoms to protect, which is why we must fight any infringement no matter how distastful the speech is. Copying DVDs may violate copyright holder's rights under some circumstances, but describing a method of copying does not. That's why it's called copyright -- it's a right to make copies of a protected work for public distribution. That's it. That's all the US Constitution says about the matter. If it meant more, it wouldn't be called copyright, it would be called restrict-all-information-about-my-product-right.
We've got until November of 2002 to get the word out and make people aware. We're sick of ignorant politicians and dumb bureacrats. So let's do this!
Of course, for those of you ignore the news until it comes up like this, well, it's time to start learning about the world and what's in it. But can you imagine what an effect this would have if we even got 100 of us running for office united across the country?
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
However, I believe that there is as yet no BSD DVD player...
Kaplan dismissed the argument too quickly anyway, based on the fact that it was also available for Windows.
I've already made my donation to the EFF ... Have you?
I'm a Canadian, but I know that whatever materializes in the US will pretty much permeat the rest of the world. The battle is being fought in the US, and needs to be won in the US. And thats where I want my donation to go.
mike
>To them the Internet is nothing more than a new distribution platform for commerce.
there's an interesting article over at www.osopinion.com regarding asymetric broadband links potentially being used to subvert the internet into a one way medium. if your connection is limited on the transmit side, your ability to participate in p2p networks (or serve anything, really) is kneecapped.
If linking to illegal material is against the law, I would think that every search engine should be taken down. How can this be different?
Or even worse, makes a news site with TRUE information.
bah
---
I've asked serveral of my classmates about DeCSS, MPAA and this case. Not a single one had a clue what I was talking about. Our school news paper in the past 6 months has published several articles about Napster, but not a single one on DeCSS. It's partly the media's fault for not giving it more publicity, but mostly I think it tends to be a bit to "technical" for most people and they scan over the articles (on the rare occassion there are articles), see some anacronyms they've never seen before and put it off as being an article about computers instead of our rights.
Pretty much everybody in the world knows that USA is responsible for more deaths than Nazi Germany during WWII, that USA brakes more human rights than it defends. So why bother lying to yourselves ? All this talk about "your rights" is just there to keep you happy while you sponsor your government with your taxes.
Whats wrong here in this case, is not the US government policy, but the US government in general.
I take offense to that remark.  The Libertarians are a party that advocates personal responsibility?  When you distill their message, that's excatly what it boils down to.
So what exactly is wrong with that?
Uh, last I checked, Mary Jo White was a Clinton appointee.  So if that was indeed her thought process, they didn't do a very thorough background check on her when she was nominated.
Yeah, I know it's not fair to expect you to have the slightest clue about what you're saying...
As she should...  Even Stevie Wonder can see that pardons were sold for money and favors.  However, I think the government should stay out of the MPAA vs. 2600 case.
No, that's not correct.  It's personal responsibilility that gives individuals the freedom to deal with problems on their own.  With that freedom comes responsibility that is currently not expected of citizens today.  What you seem to be advocating is that the govenernment should protect the weak.  In my view, all this does is keep them weak and make others more so.  Don't fear corporations.  Just give them less power over the government.  In a free society there are less (bureaucratic) obstacles to starting your own business in order to fight corporations that you don't like via competition.  Also keep in mind that much of the legislation today (such as copyright) benefits those same corporations.  Take that away and you take away their power.  That's why I value the freedom for the individual and am hence a Libertarian.
Yeah, and you ASSumed that since she's going after the ex-President that she must be a Bush supporter/appointee.  That ain't the case.  If you do some *RESEARCH* you would find that she's a Clinton appointee.  And just because she's a Clinton appointee, do you think that she shouldn't do her job (of investigating criminal wrongdoing)? Do you have trouble reading or is it just too hard for you to understand what's being said?
In general, the government supports all of Judge Kaplan's "best" positions in his decision: linking is not speech, linking is equivalent to distributing banned content yourself.
Does this mean I can sue Google or other Search Engines for linking me to illegal content?
Smuffe
This implies that if I created a DVD encrypted with CSS, and my intention was that it should be viewed ONLY with DeCSS (hey, in a UCITA state I could probably even make that one of the terms and conditions of the DVD's license agreement), then playing it in a MPAA-approved DVD player would constitute circumventing its access control. So I should be able to prevent the MPAA from creating DVD players... After all, does it say in the DMCA "CSS belongs to MPAA and only they may use it as their access control method"? (OK, there may be patent issues. Suppose it's 17 years from now, the patents have expired, and the DMCA and MPAA are still around).
It gets worse: anything that circumvents the access control is illegal, and as the content creator, I get to choose my method of access control. Maybe I choose rot-17 - is tr now illegal? Maybe I choose zlib compression as my access control - is gzip now illegal?
That's a bit of a stretch and I'm sure no court would agree. It comes down to the interpretation of "effectively preventing access" to the content. If there are common tools to create content in that form, and common tools to view content in that form, then the access control is not "effective", in my opinion.
This makes me wonder if non-MPAA-approved CSS encryption tools would change how things work: bundle an encryptor with DeCSS and market it as a DVD mastering tool plus software decoder. Make a trivial change to the bitstream format (e.g., add a comment "Created by FooCSS") and make sure the DeCSS won't touch anything without that comment (presto, it's no longer an access control circumventer for MPAA's content). It would require a real stretch for this software bundle to be illegal under the DMCA, yet it nonetheless contains a functional CSS decryptor.
We bog the supreme court down way too much with inane disputes as it is.
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
I recently (past month or two) heard on NPR (forgetting why) that the MPAA/Media were planning to file an appeal to something ON THE BASIS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT's freedoms.
I agree with their position, but I am concerned with the "Rights are only for businesses" attitude that companies are taking.
This has been taken before in the last century, and only World War 2 prevented it. Read a book such as Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck.
I do not see a world war on the horizon (even with Bush's policies), and I can't think of anything that comes close to that for distraction value (except terrorism or some other thing, that looking at policies has me thinking more that the "terrorism threat" is a load of BS).
I do predict a "war", "revolt", "revolution", whatever you want to call it, in the United States. I mean, the US government is stepping on too many people's toes-Hackers, Crackers, Gun-owners, Privacy advocates, Freedom advocates, and others. If they do not stop, I believe that there may be a revolution. I hope that the government gets their heads out of the corperations rears before this happens, and prevents this by reforming.
If you were required to pay, you may send your $3 to the EFF (www.eff.org has instructions for donations)
I think I found a statement in the US gov brief that may prove to be a very weak link in the movie industries whole line of battle.
"Because viewers cannot access CSS encrypted DVDs without the necessary technological "keys," and because those keys are lawfully available only "by purchasing a [licensed] DVD player," the district court concluded that CSS is an effective access control measure"
This is an explicit statement by the government that the users rights to view a DVD is contingent on their purchasing a licensed DVD player. Requiring this additional purchase from a particular company, or set of companies, may well exceed their authority to control their copyright, and could be taken as a violation of antitrust laws.
I personally am of the opinion that this case won't be won or lost on free speech grounds but on restraint of trade and antitrust grounds. The media industry have set themselves up so that an artist may have effective legal copyright protection in the digital age only with the permission of the media companies. If we fight them on this ground that is where they will lose the battle.
The MPAA's main arguement against DeCSS appears to be that it can be used to rip DVDs. However, even with a large hard drive and broadband internet access of some sort, it would be difficult to trade more than a few movies.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
If you think that the plethora of legal amateurs out there who think that they have a rock-steady legal case to litigate is a threat to the profession, dream on. The lawyer's summer homes are built on amateurs with legal aspirations
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Think about it. How can choosing your player for a DVD be a free speech issue? Watching a DVD is consuming speech, not producing it.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
The idea that DeCSS was necessary in order to produce a Linux player was not even seriously advanced by the Corley defence. It's full of holes; particularly shot down by the fact that DeCSS was written for Windows.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Corley should drop the case. The only real hope he has is the overbreadth attack on the DMCA; Kaplan was entirely right to say that while code is speech, the DMCA is a constitutionally permissible restriction on speech.
So all that's left is to say that the DMCA is overbroad because it restricts fair use. And that's going to be very difficult to establish while DVD remains a minority format and all the material you might want to use is available elsewhere. The US Govt. is right that "having to buy another copy or make do with an inferior recording" is not the sort of impediment to fair use of which overbreadth defences are made.
So Corley should drop his appeal, take his licks and come back with a better case once copy-prevention has become ubiquitous, at which time the constitutional argument will be stronger. Losing on this one due to contingent facts of the case is going to make it much more difficult to win in future with a stronger case.
Oh yeh, and people, can we stick to pointing out technical errors in the document? The amateurish "according to my reading of the Constitution" analysis of people who don't know shit about the case law is embarrassing, unhelpful, and only raises the overall signal/noise ratio
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Nobody wrote DeCSS to teach you encryption, and you'll never convince a court that they did.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
The trailer(s) for the film itself
Available on other videotapes. If you're genuine about producing a fair use work, you'll get hold of them.
Alternate language soundtracks
You can simply record the sound made by your Windows DVD player by conventional means and add it to your fair use work. You don't need a digital-perfect copy for scholarship, satire or parody.
Subtitles, both in other languages and for the hearing impaired
Screenplays are not hard to get hold of in paper form, or on the internet
Director's commentary
See above on foreign language soundtracks
Music-only soundtrack
ditto
Fair use exists to ensure that copyright does not stifle free speech. It can't be worked up into a right to have your kewl DVDs available in exactly the form you want. There is no such right.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Lawyers are going to be the ones who interpret the Constitution no matter what you want or say. Think for yourself by all means, but when one of our friends is on trial for his liberty and rights we hold dear are at stake, it would be better for you to concentrate your help on where it is most practical use. Once the immediate problem is over, I'd love to discuss the Constitution with you, but for the time being, we need more noise and less signal
-- the most controversial site on the Web
No, the defence under DMCA is that it is permissible to cirumvent if you do so for the purpose of advancing knowledge of encryption. As is so often the case in law and so rarely the case in computing, intention matters. In any case, this is an appeal of a previous case in which that defence wasn't offered, so all your help would achieve would be to waste clerical time; this is something that can only benefit the side with more resources.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Well in that case, I think you should hole up in a shack in Montana, and prepare for the end times while you pack bags of fertilizer onto a Ryder truck. Seriously, if you're that serious about the doctrine of original intent, and if you think that it's at all possible to be certain of what the Constitution either "says" or "means", then your only real option is violent revolution. But, since we must consider the possibility that your revolution may fail, could you perhaps take a minute or two to look at the US Govt's amicus brief in this case and point out any technical errors which you are qualified to comment on?
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Two negatives make a positive, but two positives don't make a negative.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
You're right. But kindly tell me what this has to do with DeCSS.
DeCSS does not in any way shape or form require distribution of any files it creates. If you want to be fair, simply prosecute the people that distribute the files, which is currently allowed under copyright law. No need whatsoever to invoke the draconian measures that the MPAA is using.
So the unavailability of a Linux DVD player is not an argument. Of course it isn't GPL but I doubt the judge would be swayed by that.
What is really scary, at least to me, is that the government is legally standing on pretty solid ground.
Reading through their argument, they refer back to the DMCA and contend that it is illegal to offer, import, trade, etc. a technology primarily designed to circumvent the technological measures designed to protect a copyrighted material. I would think that a good defense would be that DeCSS has the primary design of allowing people with the legal right to view a DVD the ability to do so with open source software.
The DMCA outlaws the public transaction of knowledge of information not associated with national security... that is just wrong. This whole situation needs a serious dose of civil disobedience. <Fanatical rant>Everybody post DeCSS on your web site as a stand against corporate tyranny!</Fanatical rant>
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
This is totally irelevant.
I wouldn't deny USA Today the right to be published based on the fact that they only printed crap from the first day of their very existence.
If I don't like a publication I neither buy nor read it.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Although this is factually right of course, it's an absolutely mean tactic to install the fear of god in the upright citizen.
I personally don't agree with stealing domain names or hacking e-mail. But what the &^$%^%*$%( has this to do with the issue at hand or the first ammendment ?
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Hey, after all they linked to the possibility to commit a crime...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
What if you don't directly link to the site, but instead use some sort of proxy (i.e. Akamai)?? For example:
      http://a1.g.akamaitech.net/6/6/6/6/www.yahoo.com/
Technically, you're no longer linking to the site. You're linking to Akamai (so does this make Akamai's services illegal, since they are now dynamically mirroring the content?).
Or, what if you don't actually use a link, but instead type the URL in plain text?
      http://www.yahoo.com
I've heard the argument made that this is analogous to personally transporting someone to a location to buy crack vs. just telling that person where it is available.
I like it how if the US legal system says something is ilegal,Then the rest of the world gets affected. If something is stopted like this or napster then they are gone as no-one else would challange the US over there laws.
Am I beeing correct in this line of thaught?
--
The computer told me to press any key to continue,I pressed the one looking like this (|) !!OH SH*T!!
I still have DeCSS up on my site, and it isn't just a link. Since Canada doesn't have the DMCA the software is not illegal here....Which means linking to it is definately not illegal.
FunkyDemon
That's where pay-per-view drops in: I already see the commercials: "You're at work? You can't be there: the 'big game' for your enjoyment on HTDV, more real than in the stadium, and only for 9.99$" (in very small letters...pay per view, taxes not included, MPAA decriptor not included, may only be seen by one person at a time.)
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Ehm, my post was sarcasm... Really, I'm in no way a pay-per-view fanatic. However never forget that *if* an industry is able to leverage some service/product as "better" (even if it has drawbacks), we might as well be forced to use it after a while. Those marketing/advertisment guys can be quite ingenious.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
The line in the Copyright Act you refer to doesn't apply to software; software has been copyrightable for a long time.
That line is meant to apply to situations like this: you drew up instructions to build something, but you didn't get a patent. Someone takes a peek at your instructions (maybe you let the person see it), and subsequently builds the thing (and sells/distributes/uses it). You want to sue for infringement, but since you didn't get a patent, you try to sue under copyright (assuming you have one). That line says that you can't sue as to the infringement of building the thing; copyright only extends as far as the expression you put down. The idea itself, since it's patentable, can't be protected by copyright.
Software instructions don't fall under procedure, process, system, or method of operation because those instructions aren't generally considered patentable (patent law is loosening up on this point, especially as to algorithms and not-too-crazy-extensions of business method patents, but it's still a general rule).
I agree that this is a troll, but not really for the Bush thing; I take personal offense at the anti-goto sentiment. :-)
Long live the lobbyists, otherwise I completely fail to see how this could catch the attention and time of the U.S. Goverment.
As said in the Simpsons "I guess poor people just can't afford justice". Another reference could be: - Motto at courthouse (bg):"Liberty and Justice for most"
Oh well, maybe it's overdoing it a bit, but it does however seem to me that a rich dude would have a better chance of winning and that the U.S. justice system is more about money than justice. Just call me a troll if you must, but that is the impression that you get as an "outsider". Anyone agrees?
--------
Perhaps one of the scariest parts of the brief comes right at the very begining of the text:
With its valuable potential for global product distribution at far lower transaction costs, electronic commerce has also created new business challenges, particularly for vendors of intellectual property[...]Embracing the digital medium as their own, infringers threaten to usurp much if not all of the Internet market for copyrighted works.
In other words, the internet is only a vehicle for trade in the eyes of the government, and all those who wish to contribute to it in some way other than in order to further corporations interest are acting counter to it's very purpose. If this attitude had been taken towards the mail system (which this conception reduces the internet to, a system for exchanging catalogs, payments and products) many undesirable legislative principles could have been justified (though i can't think of any right now)...
the fact that non-corporate interests created and developed the internet and the web to allow it to be what it is today is of course completely ignored. the web has no importance outside of it's implications for business, and the government has no interest in understanding or furthering it's potential deep implications. corporate paradigm shifts are great, because they prevent (or at least postpone) massive, possibly destabilizing, global paradigm shifts.
It was said before, but bears repeating. Bush has been in office less than a month. All the government actions you are bitching about were done by people appointed by Clinton. Not Bush. Clinton! Think! The precious Democrats who can do no wrong have spent 8 years trampling your rights one by one. And all you can do is bitch about Bush? You deserve whatever misfortune befalls you. "Stupidity is a capital offense" (I forget who said that.)
Where does that leave the organisation (BT!) that holds the patent for links... like the creator of DeCSS maybe they should be done for creating the means to mreak the law....
-- Soruk
This is what happens when you install a man with a cabbage for a brain as President.
Congratulations, Americans! Your leader will now do whatever his daddy and his daddy's friends - corporations - tell him to do. You have a puppet leader, and he will do everything in his power to screw you.
Someone definately set up you the bomb, America.
Does my bum look big in this?
I think that it is time that the people form a petition against the actions that the MPAA and the government are taking in the name of the DMCA. I cannot start this alone, but I would be most interested to hear from anyone who has an original argument to be added to the repudiation of this legislature. Hopefully when enough (digital?) signatures have arrived, we will be able to send a copy to every congressman and supreme court justice in america.
Then again, maybe I'm just getting ahead of myself....
What could be more massive than 70 million Napster users?
I understand that 2600 is synonymous with hacking. However, I think they get undue attention, and in many cases, undue persecution.
I really don't care whether it is legal or illegal to link to or carry contraband binary files on your site. The point is that it is too late to stop decss. I have found copies of decss all over the place. Some sites have it kind of hidden in non-obviously named directories. For example, check out ftp.kernel.org/pub/software/web/html-util/decss
Where is Henry David Thoreau when you need him! The government that governs least, governs best
Since this violates the first amendment, wouldn't it take another amendment (2/3 Senate) to override the 1st amendment? Sorry if I misspelled/screwed up big time, but I am in a hurry before school.
That may be the intention of the government, but this will most likely prove completely unenforceable. Somebody will set up a very well written article about DeCSS that I happen to like on a server outside the US, so that they are legally able to link to DeCSS source. My intent by posting a link on my web page to that web page was merely intended to educate others about DeCSS. (of course) My ability to link to a web page that has relevant content and does not display anything illegal is (I hope) protected. It will be impossible for anyone to prove that my real intent was not simply to point to an informative site on the internet, but to point to a site that could point to a site that is illegal.
But it isn't speech but the press. 2600 is an online news organization.. among other things. If the New York Times printed an article with the code to DeCSS then it would be protected speec under the 1st amendment. If I write an article online and provide a link to DeCSS then it should also be protected.. why is it that an online news organization is less protected than an paper an ink one? Rights are Rights, and they are inalienable. I've always been astounded that congress doesn't understand the words "Congress shall make no law..."
Does anyone really care? That's not the point of his post.
Well, the MPAA has the money, so they will most likely win (that's how the legal system works, right?).
Since the MPAA managed to make it illegal to even link to a site that has DeCSS available for download, I thought I'd try a seach on go.com (a search engine owned by Disney, member of MPAA), and came up with several links to DeCSS code.
So, MPAA members are themselves linking to it - are they going to prosecute themselves now?
"If you leave a bunch of people free to do what they want, each one of them will end up doing what others are doing."
I've read some excellent comments about what 'we' should do, about 'waking up' the average citizen, and so forth.
The average citizen doesn't want to be free. They want to be satisfied. Once satisfaction was meaning freedom, because people were physically chained to their land/situation. Now they aren't chained any more to anything they can see or touch, therefore there's no issue.
Why should they care about privacy? If the price of privacy is paranoia, is it worthed?
People doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't want to be freed. Those who still can do something (not only trolling around complaining like me right now) are disappearing fast, under tons of hypocrisy or just tons of lawsuit.
Welcome to the real world, where happiness is just a buck away. Don't stop thinking, just do what we want you to do.
"Welcome to the machine (pink floyd) Welcome my son, welcome to the machine. Where have you been? It's alright we know where you've been. You've been in the pipeline, filling in time, Provided with toys and 'Scouting for Boys'. You brought a guitar to punish your ma, And you didn't like school, and you know you're nobody's fool, So welcome to the machine. Welcome my son, welcome to the machine. What did you dream? It's alright we told you what to dream. You dreamed of a big star, He played a mean gituar, He always ate in the Steak Bar. He loved to drive in his Jaguar. So welcome to the Machine."
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
I wonder who you voted for? You think Bush or Ashcroft will have anything to do with this case at all? Even if your butt boy Gore had won..What would he have done? The democrats and the entertainment industry (MPAA) are married, You think Al Gore would bite the hand that feeds his campaign funds? yeah..right...Democrats don't even CARE about free speech. An example that comes to mind is the confederate flag. While I do understand that it may upset others and I personally could give a damn about it. Democrats would like to have it outlawed. But that is a clear form of speech and expression. So chew on that for awhile.
A new file distribution system is needed..less centralized than napster, slightly more centralization than gnutella (to prevent the enormous bandwidth clog that gnutella is turning into).
Something similar to the network design of IRC where you have little servers all over the world interconnected to one another...
Heh, yes i'm working on this right now. More info will be coming in the next couple of weeks. Stay tuned.
-
My idea is to have central servers that clients connect to, but the central servers are widely distributed. They can pass search requests from one another. Much like in the way IRC works (of course, its not chat being passed around)
I'm working on a protocol spec. It should be ready for comment, with some demo code available in a couple of weeks. I hope to get it posted here on slashdot and get plenty of peer review on it.
-
I second this idea, for what it's worth.
It would be interesting to see someone print a book including the DeCSS code, aside from any ramifications it might have for the case (although those would be a good side benefit). Isn't it an interesting enough topic in itself? Intellectual property rights, fair use, cryptography, open source--what more subject areas would you want?
Heck, you could write a book on the DMCA or intellectual property claims as a fundamental civil concern of contemporary society, covering this and a whole lot more! Put the DeCSS code on the cover! I personally might be more interested in a DeCSS book per se, and a DeCSS book would be easier to write, but if the scope could be expanded, all the better! It's really a topic that needs to be written about in book form, regardless of the DeCSS case. Intellectual property right issues extend far beyond DeCSS into genomics, web design, the food industry...
So if anyone knows a publisher, or is a publisher--think about it as a real possibility.
>you had spent years on a project, piece of
>music, or program, and watched it being used my
>tens of thousands of people
Isnt that the point? Artists are supposed to be doing it for the art correct?
Not only this but most musical artists only get a slim percentage of the record sales, and that aside filesharing and such has actually been proven to HELP sales. There has yet to be a single shred of evidence that any of this has hert sales of any kind.
Though to get on topic the MPAA is getting pretty draconian, they tried to arrest a guy living in a country where his actions arent illegal. It's funny how we leave people as prisoners in third-world countries but we'll be damned if we won't impose our laws on those countries.
And to end my ranting one thought, the DeCSS decryption was devised to allow unix users to play DVDs, not steal them, they wanted to use their power to reinforce a monopoly and that fin wasn't going to take it, hmm kinda reminds me of a few brits who decided to commit treason (technically the american revolution was treason).
Defacing the MPAA webpage with the DeCSS code would be quite fun, as well.
I actually had no idea. Maybe I should mention that next time (if ever) I write. Do you know what US law its applied under?
Yes I have contacted my congressman - I wrote my representative - and both of my state senators (Oregon) about the issue - that was a year and a half ago. I have yet to hear a reply. All I asked was their voting record on the issue - and I gave my opinion on how the DMCA thwarts free speach. They never wrote back - they could have sent a form letter, or even e-mailed me (I gave them my e-mail address!) but they couldn't even do that.
What about corperate subversion? This where they slowly take over our government, our legal structure (read that book by Ralph Nader called "no contest"), our economic system, our energy production system (IE - california), and eventually our lives. At this point it wouldn't suprise me if the supreme court ruled in favor of the movie studios (this is after all the same supreme court that violated the US constitution and decided florida's election).
The right to link will be preserved by the Supreme Court. It may be illegal to have a crack house on the corner, but it's not illegal for me to tell you there is a crack house on the corner, or how much they illegally sell drugs for inside.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
How is that any different? Shouting FIRE in a crowded place requires the action of others for bodily injury to be possible! If the people don't panic and run for the exit, then no one gets hurt...
Much like if you provide a link (shouting "here is DeCSS!") It requires the action of another to go and physically get the program.
So, your point was?
Disclaimer: This does not mean that I agree with the courts/gov/big business, but I'm sick of seing flawed logic on this site.
Sigs suck.
I admire your pragmatism but cannot agree with your view...
Lawyers are indeed those who interpret law. However, they are not the only people involved in this case, as it seems to potentially involve standards of media worldwide. Those affected have the right to be heard as well.
For laws to be fair, they must be understandable by those they govern. Therefore even those people without a 'background in case law' have a legitimate right to post, and could understandably confuse your posted opinion for elitism. For us to 'concentrate our help where it [will be of the most] practical use' we first must decide what that place is. That judgement is sharpened by exposure to forums such as this one.
I realize that you are most likely speaking out of pragmatism and a sense of what really is effective in a court situation. Thank you. I think you are correct: lawyers are in this day and age the most effective and publicly visible interpreters of the constitution- they do have official sanction in the world of govt. and business. They are a neccessary part of this process- but not the only part.
As said document reads:
I am one of the people referred to in this document. I believe my views on this are exactly as important (Although perhaps not as intelligent...) as those of any other individual who lives by its (nominal) rule of law.Only I can say what I think truly on this case; my opinion filtered through a lawyer would not be so accurate. Therefore, I consider it important that 'rants and raves' are posted here in this forum. That is the purpose of this forum, is it not?
Anybody can post here. Moderators do the job of suitability judging, not posters. Perhaps you are tired of seeing the lameness? It is unfortunately part of the voice of this community too.
That is the main problem with all those limited liability structures. The property is not connected to responsibility anymore. Or do you think the Shell shareholders feel responsible for the things happening in Nigeria? Or the mnagement? Come on, they are hired bill jobbers. It may be a democratic background to seperate possesion and mangement, but this cripples or kills responsibility.
The one side feels not responsible for the actions of a company and the other side feels only responsible to the shareholders. And both sides have actually no clue whats going on. And the people with a clue have only seldom a chance to influence political decisions.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for total control by the gouvernment, I just want to make people liable for things happening, so that they may remember that they are responsible for it.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
It doesn't matter if 2600 publishes things the DOJ or the judge doesn't like, or even if they publish stuff thats illegal, since the courts mandate is only to decide whether the linking to decss is legal or not.
I also feel frustrated at the lack of concern people have for our basic freedoms. At this point they feel as though their freedoms are immune, but in reality they are being whittled away on a daily basis. My brother and I made a public access television show that discusses the DeCSS case amonge other things, but I honestly expect little response. The people who are most familiar with these issues are also the most politically apathetic. Most people consider a scenario such as 1984 to be impossible in our society, but things such as mass surveilence are already commonplace. We seem to be on a very slow downward slide that will end in an inescapable pit where the technologies that were designed to make our lives better become the implements of our captors. I personally believe that I will be dead before freedom has trully disappeared from the world, but I fear for my baby girl and her children after her. If there is a shred of hope in this world it lies in the open source community, where profit is only a secondary motivation. On a lighter note, since the corporations buy out the governments, I suppose that deciding who to buy from is the same as voting.
My Blog
what you need to realize is that the way things like this are finaly won is by associating them with the things in society that are considered free and open, ie books.
can you imagine if the government tried to censor a book because of its content? the ACLU would be on there ass like a bad case of herpes.
-The American people have overpaid; I am here to ask for a refund.
hey!!!! the person who you are quoting in your sig is verbal from the usual suspects...SHEEESH
-The American people have overpaid; I am here to ask for a refund.
I can answer you question and let you prove this to yourself. I already used this test to help a friend demonstrate to herself the real issues in this case. Wonder why the EFF lawyers haven't done this test!?
Here is a short ROT13 encrypted message: URYYB. Copy it onto a piece of paper. (Wait until he or she has done so.)
Now ask: "So did the fact the message was encrypted in anyway stop you from copying it?" No. "Did you need a decrypted version to COPY it?" No. Well, according to the movie studios, DeCSS is a decryption program used to make illegal copies of DVDs. But you just copied something without decrypting it. Now who has been lying to you and the courts about this case?...
To paraphrase this whole MPAA ruckus, "It's the control, stupid!" The MPAA demands control over what people do with their DVDs after they buy them. It is the same old song-and-dance we have seen from the RIAA: content control after the sale. They demand it. People, naturally, resent it, but apparantly the MPAA/RIAA has found that people are willing to give up their freedoms and rights to protect the delicate industries from the evil,bad,and nasty pirates. (*cough* dmca *cough*) So, when the MPAA (or RIAA) starts waxing eloquently about how we need to protect the, against piracy of movies (or music), just remember: its a secret verbal encryption engine: What the MPAA is really saying is : "We want to charge people multiple times for the same item and clean them out not only in the price of the movie, at the theater, but also in the licensing fees for DVD players, and for the DVD movies themselves. And we want to tell people what they can and can't do with our media" However, that sounds really bad. They know this and encrypt their output so that instead, what you hear is their encrypted output: "We need content control to prevent piracy which threatens the artist and ultimately harms the consumer."
I guess I just can't understand copyright. I mean, I've always thought that if one creates the content and makes it well identified that they created that content (whether that content is code, graphics, paintings, books, what have you). Then the creator of the content has the right to do with whatever he/she wishes (to distribute it for free, ask a fee, to hide it from the world or present it in bright, shiny lights). The case MPAA vrs 2600 is just plain stupid (as is RPAA vrs Napster). OK, granted, the MPAA is 'protecting' the copyrights of content creator's movie encoded onto the DVD, but the purchaser should also have the right to do with the purchase as they see fit (to play it, to hack it, to destory it) because they bought the rights to access the content. But terms of the copyright on DeCCS... Did the MPAA develop DeCCS? NooooooOOOooo... Therefore, does the MPAA have the right to tell a website if it can or cannot link or display content they didn't create? (everyone chime in now) NooooOOOoooo... Why? Because they didn't develop it, and have no rights governing its use. Its a war, ladies and gentlemen, and should be treated as such. If someone breaks your encryption, you develop a new one to protect your secrets, plain and simple.
"BSD is about people pissing each other.." (Moid Vallat)
If I link to goatse.cx, you don't have an ass pic until you--yes, you--follow the link.
If I link to DeCSS, you do not have DeCSS until you follow the link.
If I tell you that someone's selling cheap crack three blocks from you, you don't have crack until you go and buy it.
If I tell the police where the murderer is holed up, they still haven't caught him until they actually go and arrest him.
Question for you: the net is constantly changing. What happens if I post a link which right now contains pictures of someone's pet kitten, but which they later modify to contain the DeCSS source without my knowledge? Am I still responsible for the linked content?
I'm sure all the slashdot folks will either moderate this poorly, or it'll get jumped on, because heaven forbid if someone out there thinks differently about this stuff...
Anyways... Sure linking is akin to distributing, that's what you're doing, plain and simple. The question we have to ask is: Is the right to free speech allowed when it directly infringes the rights of another? Sometimes yes. I know, people will say that there can be no exceptions, but if this argument was about linking to child pornography, there'd be no argument. No law can be absolute. And yes, many people will argue that we're just giving more power to the big bad giant multinationals, but tough. The law (if it works) doesn't differentiate against the little guy. Now, I will agree that in reality this often isn't the case, but you can blame the current state of the American legal system for that. Forcing people to pay for their own attorneys if they are sued... In many other countries, if you initiate a law suit and lose, you pay both sides legal fees...
In any case, I'm starting to ramble. Sorry.
I would like to hear some intelligent replies to this thread. Is linking to something that is not necessarily kosher alright?
Exactly. The linking issue is a red herring in this entire case.
Whoa, boy. Take that shovel out of my mouth. The rest of my post (after the first sentence) is pointing out (though perhaps not as clearly as I would have liked) that linking should be protected for the very reason that one would have to judge intent, a legal nightmare.
And why the heck are you rambling about violence and starting wars? One rant per post, please.
There are many other factors to the equation of power distribution in America, but that is a primary one.
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
Well, how do they handle this on Star Trek Voyager? I mean, why don't we ever see Paris going over to the replicator, looking over his shoulder, and asking for a fattie, then sneaking down to the holo-deck and loading up the "lava lamp land" program?
I mean, everyone else seems to be replicating alcoholic beverages, even the Cap'n is a caffeine junkie (ever notice how caffeine doesn't obey the law of i before e?) - could her caffeine addiction negatively impact her performance as a captain? Put people's lives in jeopardy? Is it a banned substance? I mean, sure, maybe it's some kind of synthetic caffeine, but she sure gets bitchy before she gets her coffee, so it looks like addiction to me - so whatever 23rd century substitute they have, it's still addictive.
Then what about patented drugs? Does the federation have to beam payments to the drug companies any time a replicator makes something to help a sick crew member (who then, in the line of duty saves the company's home-planet from assimilation by the Borg? All in a day's work ma'am). Is it against the law to hack a replicator? What if the Voyager's replicators stop working after a few years because the licenses weren't updated? THEN they'd be fucked.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Well, why do you think it is, then, that most Cable service agreements forbid operation of a server? Or why is it that DSL companies HATE to give out static IP addresses.
What if someone makes a news site with fake information? I've got news for you. . . The public WOULD be misled, IS misled, and has been misled for decades.
The crackdown on "anyone can have their own server" has already begun. What content you can host is determined by your ISP, likely a Very Large Corporation (or soon will be bought by one).
It won't be long before most personal web pages are "this is my car this is my dog" pages. (um wait) hosted on Geocities, and the tools required to start a viable web business (ecommerce software, web design expertise, hardware, connectivity, partnerships with search engines and filter companies and huge OS vendors, etc) are so expensive, that the bar is too high for the general home user, and only Very Large Corporations will be able to do it.. Just the realities of market economics.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I send regular love letters to my congresscritters every six months. I gave $1000 to Congressman McCain (which he returned because he quit campaigning two weeks later).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
a philosophy of personal responsibility is fine and dandy, but distill it down a bit more and it's nothing more than survival of the fittest, and basically anarchy.
It sounds like the libertarian party's aim is to just let the people with all the money and power do whatever they want to those who don't have money and power. (please, please, stop interfering with my right to dump nuclear waste on MY land! please, please stop making me pay taxes for a police department I don't need because I hired my own private armed security force!)
It puts way too much faith in the personal responsibility of individual humans who basically only display personal responsibility when they are compelled to by social contract.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Why oh why doesn't SOMEBODY start a political party?
I mean, I know the libertarians have a strong online presence, but they're just whacko, and the Greens, well, they're too strongly associated with failed socialist policies of Europe (whether that's true or not, that's just how we Americans view the Greens, just a fact, not an opinion - and if that doesn't kill the Greens, Jello Biafra, though I LOVE the guy, will), and the Reform party, well, it was a nice idea until the fundy freaks usurped it.
Democrats $
Republicans $
So it looks like lobbying an existing party to get onto their platform is not a viable option.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
no, 80's was greed, 90's was apathy. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"BTW, we started to lose our freedoms in 1861 when Lincoln decided that states didn't have the right to secede."
I think this is probably a key point in American History that's glossed over - because that notion, is bundled with slavery, at least in the propaganda that's pushed.
Now, everyone, please, raise your hands, who's for slavery? Anyone? Buelher? Anyone?
So basically, the way the US Civil war is taugh in US History classes, is that giving the Federal Government THAT much power was a GOOD thing, and if you don't believe that, you're for slavery, and a Nazi racist skinhead trenchcoat mafia member! (erm- Godwin's law?)
A masterstroke of social engineering, I might add. Propaganda, before propaganda became fasionable.
Hey, all that time I wasted reading Robert A. Wilson books had to be good for *something*!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I think that the argument in favor of limiting a corporation's "free speech" that finally hit home was the fact that the shareholders had no voice in how a corporation spends it's political bribery fund.
So the law will be changed to make sure that the shareholders get to vote on corporate political donations. (instead of being forced to "vote with their feet").
The Republicans accepted that argument as long as Unions were similarly restricted by the will of their members. (which seems fine to me, why wouldn't Union members want to give money to the party that stands up for their rights?)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
That's all we need, the ACLU on our side.
The ACLU has such a bad reputation of political bias (whether that's deserved or not), it won't help our case on bit. In fact, it will harm it. In America (if you haven't noticed) if the ACLU is defending it, then it's part of the international communist conspiracy. . .
I think that organizations like the EFF and ACLU are fine and dandy. Legal guns are necessary, but die mensche, the people, need to be educated. They need to know and understand these issues. Especially the people who are in law school right now, who will be prosecuting and defending and judging these cases in the future. Right now, the legal environment consists mainly of people who "came up" during the greed-infested 80's. It's only going to get worse as corporate propaganda in the educational system (yet another money-making machine), gets more and more entrenched.
It's the dental students who have to pay for the damn necessary book every 180 days, it's the animation students who don't get to view as course materials, one of the seminal works of the art (Steamboat Willie) because it's still not public domain, and luckily, it's the 70 million dorm rats who are being chased off of napster.
Since this Napster debate started, I've heard the opinions of a lot of deluded self-rightious morons who have been listening to record company propaganda saying that copying is stealing and that it's illegal. Well, that was bullshit from day one, and more effort should be put towards educating these people that we had (until recently) a legal right to copy music - until the record companies bribed the politicians and judges to take away that right. Whether it SEEMS right or wrong is a moral exercise for any individual, but what is CLEARLY wrong is telling someone that what they are doing is illegal when it's not, and then bribing politicians and judges to change the law. Once people realize that, they should understand that this issue isn't just about copying Brittney Spears songs, it's about our basic rights and our political system, control of our very lives - economic slavery. The right/wrong issues are staggering when you take that into account. A 136 Gig MP3 collection is a tempest in a teacup by comparison. That is what the lawyers and judges and politicians of tomorrow NEED to know.
The internet is the greatest information dissemination tool that humankind has ever devised. And still, we can't get the word out.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
> I really can't see the justification for linking > as speech.
Then you effectively ban me saying to someone: "Hey, I hear you can pick up a hooker on 8 Mile and Woodward". I'm allowed to do that now under the Constitution -- but I'm not allowed to do the technical equivalent on the Web?
No way. If this decision stays as a piece of prior case law, I'm all in favor of taking up arms and staging another revolution.
(Oh, I'm allowed to say that too... Nice thing, free speech).
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
It strikes me that, perhaps, the US government has just about finished its transformation from a government of the people, by the people, and for the people into a government of the businesses, by the businesses, and for the businesses.
ClayJar's item seems both insightful and very nicely written. The fact that, as he says later, he's dismissed as a radical merely by mentioning that our freedoms are being usurped by big business really does highlight the key problem which underpins the whole DeCSS/MPAA and DMCA issue --- the majority of the public seems to be blindly accepting or oblivious of what's going on, and therefore government and big business can proceed with whichever agenda suits them best with impunity.
Yes, in what's allegedly a democracy, that's definitely the key problem.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I'm afraid you're right. Relying on courts, governments and lawyers was a mistake from the start. I guess we can all see that now, with the benefit of hindsight.
We're good at technology, so let's apply a technological solution that isn't at the mercy of people who's minds are rooted in the past.
Instead of trying to get the single DeCSS guinea pig accepted, with all the room for litigation and corporate control that that implies, many alternative implementations could be developed by different groups, and made available as plugins.
This would allow generic players to be created and published safely on websites, supplied only with a plugin for accessing unencrypted content. Meanwhile, an unstoppable rain of alternative plugins would be available over Usenet.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
They should plug into the OS, at the filesystem level.
Yes, a very good point, as a plugin for a player wouldn't normally be usable in any other any application. Plug into the OS, by all means! Write once, use many places.
The plugins must not be kernel modules though, for obvious security/stability reasons, but should attach to the kernel as clients --- a Unix domain pipe or SysV IPC would do fine as the means of communication.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I suppose it's natural to be forever hopeful that the government of one's country is going to do the right thing for its citizenry, but if you remove the rose-tinted spectacles, that hope turns into wishful thinking.
Given the realities of the situation, the online community went about the DeCSS problem in the wrong way. Instead of hoping for sanity from the courts and government, dozens of alternative mechanisms should have been created by different groups, and made available as plugins.
This would allow generic players to be created and published safely on websites, supplied only with a plugin for accessing unencrypted content. Meanwhile, an unstoppable rain of alternative plugins would be available over Usenet.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Mine hasn't, anyway.
Nope, they don't have full rights to determine how it's distributed & presented. We have this little law called Copyright (derived from the constitutional right granted to congress to promote progress in the useful arts & sciences). One of it's features is that copyright is, well, the right to create original copies. What people do with the copies (aside from creating new copies to distribute by sale or giving away) is not restricted.
Which, of course, explains used book stores, used CD stores, libraries (who give them away), your right to sell the works at a garage sale, etc.
BTW: Back early this century, book publishers tried to pull some restrictions on resale of books. The Supreme Court ruled that they may want it, but they couldn't have it - feel free to sell that book for $.01 if you want.
(All of the above for US folks - non-US, check your laws for what rights you have. Also, IANAL, etc).
and the term "banned content". why does this just give me the shivvers?
Hmmmm... just a guess, but maybe it's because you're not a Nazi boot-kisser?
The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion.
Reagan left the Democrats at the behest of wealthy California land owners, who wanted someone to push their agenda through as Governor of California. Charleton Heston on the other hand...I'm not exactly sure what made his transition to "conservative," except that he strikes me as a pro-censorship jerk. Running the NRA is his only presently redeeming quality.
If the Democrats lost the moderate white vote by supporting civil rights and equal opportunity laws, and further alienated male voters by trying to ban guns, they are now about to lose the liberal vote under the direction of the corporate-ass-kissing Democratic Leadership Council. 25,000 people voted Green in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election. Nobody can make a credible case that fewer than 2% of those Green voters were swayed away from the Democrats. The number is probably more like 40%.
What's the solution? I'm not sure there is one. The fact is, the nation is swinging right for now, and the United States is going to get more repressive under the Republicans and the Loyal Opposition before it becomes better. It could be decades.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
If someone claimed that one of your laws was unconstitutional, you'd intervene too! Notice that the brief only goes so far as to argue that the law is constitutional, not that the MPAA should win, or anything like that.
What happened to all those DeCSS links? Did they dissappear?
I would really like to see the DeCSS Source Code published by those who care about the chilling implications this has on your personal rights.
Nope. Still Here!
Here's an actual case of exactly what you described.
An undercover agent drove by Terri White on the street and yelled out the window asking where he could buy drugs. Terri called over to someone around the corner who came out and sold $30 worth of drugs to the agent. The person who sold the drugs was a known drug dealer with a juvenile drug trafficking record. However, he was still five months away from his eighteenth birthday. Terri was charged with aggravated drug trafficking. In court the juvenile said that the drugs were Terri's.
Sentence: 12 years
Link to the article on FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums)
Pat Schroeder is a Democrat. Therefore, she can do no wrong.
Remember kiddies...
Democrats GOOD
Republicans BAD
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I'm not terribly familiar with European law, but I do recall it was not many years ago that my fellow Americans were mocking the Brits for having a horribly restrictive copyright act which reads damn close to the way the DMCA reads, so, at least in GB the same arguments against DeCSS could be made.
You might want to check your country's copyright code -before- the MPAA finishes here and goes around the world trying to establish precedent in other countries...
Parity None
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
well, if the government wants to stand behind this draconian provision of the DMCA, I say we help them be model citizens.
Lets wget the entirety of government websites, grep them for links to DMCA banned speech, then prosecute. Once we've identified the offending links, we can track them, and then we can seek damages for every instance of their being followed.
Maybe if we can get this archive of links, and a cost estimate to our representatives before the case reaches it's next big phase, the government may change it's tune. A sword isn't anywhere as nifty a toy when you're looking at the pointy end.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
Amateur analysis is more important than professional indoctrinated analysis, and the written constitution (which is available to everyone to read) is more important than case law. Why? Because everybody, including all us amateurs, are expected to obey the law. If ignorance of the law is not a defence, then the establishment's strategy of keeping people ignorant, is unfair and immoral.
The legal establishment's reliance on case law and obscurity, only serves to keep law within the realm of the elite. Its purpose is to make legal knowledge scarce, artificially increase the pay rate of lawyers, and reduce Joe Schmoe's ability to influence the society that he lives in. It also has the side-effect of making it so that the rich can bully the not-rich, by outspending them in order to get them to surrender/settle an argument in order to avoid a legal judgement.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see someone who plays a lawyer, advocate keeping amateurs and laws written by legislators (as opposed to judges), out of the argument. If you find amateurs discussing law to be embarrassing, it is probably because it is potentially a threat to the profession.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
..as others have pointed out; the government brief slings mud at the defendents which is not relevant to the issue at hand
i.e
Defendants publish a magazine for computer hackers, which "has included articles on such topics as how to steal an Internet domain
name, access to other peoples e-mail, intercept cellular phone calls, and break into computer systems at Costco stores and Federal
Express."
I think the defendents submissions should include some derogatory terms also, and I'd like some suggestions.
As a starter I propose:
Plaintiffs use the DMCA and associated copyright laws to fix absurdly high prices for their products ?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
> To do this, there are only two (legal) solutions I can think of:
Equally important, or perhaps more so, is for us to learn to control our appetites. So long as the short-term gratification of being able to watch TPM in all its digitized glory is more valuable to us than the long-term decrement in our constitutional/traditional rights and privileges, then we'll keep making the trade until we don't have any rights or privileges left.
Learn to say 'no' when corporations start peddling goodies with strings attached.
That's not to say you shouldn't support the EFF too: I got my cap & T-shirt last week.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Actually I personally don't think they give a damn about the MPAA, I think what they care about most is the fact that this case can make linking to banned matterial be against the law. A boon for the federal governments and their attempts at trying to enforce land laws on cyberspace.
Because the Supreme Court has an excellent record on making decisions based on the law, and not what feels good. If you had actually stopped to read the Supreme Courts rulling on the elections case, you might understand.
If you a lucky enough to live in one of the EU- countries, there's third legal option. A mirror of DeCSS. As long as new the EU copyright directive isn't in force there shouldn't be any (legal) problems.
Of course it is quite likely that MPAA & DVD CCA will still try legal harassment, for example your ISP will be most certainly receiving harassing letters from their lawyers. That's something that one should be prepared for. But, it's definately worth of the hassle.
Ville
My DeCSS archive:
>>linking is equivalent to distributing banned content yourself
so by his thinking, if I link to a picture of a pot plant, its the same as distributing that same pot plant?
I'm not sure that its a fair analogy.
In your case what he's saying is that you are distributing the picture of the pot plant.
The main problem with Digital Media is that it is Digital Media. You can (so far) double click on a new monitor, and download the new monitor into your home. You CAN double click on a song and get a perfect copy of it indistinguishable from what you would hear off of a CD. You can even get a whole album and burn your own CD if you want.
I don't agree that linking is equivalen to distributing the content yourself, but that is whats freaking out the RIAA and MPAA more then anything else. They survive by having the best distribution channels in place. The internet just obsoleted that.
If everyone had a machine that, when fed a chemical formula, could reproduce any chemical, and all you had to do was double-click on the formula for Pot and the computer would retrieve that formula, download it into this device, and the device what output processed pot, would you consider linking to that formula "distribution"?
You may laugh, but thats the way it works now for MP3, WAV, AVI and MPG files.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Personally, I think it's terrifying to watch. Whether I like it or not, my own country is directly affected by what goes on the US: economics, manufacturing, software, trade agreements, international patent enforcement and US multinationals are all factors which have a direct bearing on my quality of life and day-to-day existence. This includes:
Yes, my own clueless government often take the lead from US legislation on issues like intellectual property. Luckily there's no real law enforcement here and the country has a famous history of civil disobedience. But it's still disheartening to watch US citizens who should know better do nothing - yes I'm talking to YOU - John Q. Geek sitting there reading this post. When was the last time you wrote to your Representative? Voted in an election? Publicly protested against a company you didn't like? Boycotted a company's products and told them why you were doing so? Contributed to the EFF? Engaged in civil disobedience and were prepared to take the consequences? Great - we need more like you :)
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
One aspect of this which I do not remember seeing justified is why a DVD player should need authorization from the MPAA. Or to put it another way, what gives the MPAA (and others) the right to dictate how their content should be enjoyed?
Every artist has a right to determine how their art is distributed and presented to the public. In the music and movie industry, the artists sign over the distribution rights (and often the copyrights) to consortiums like the MPAA. Therefore, the MPAA is acting like an 'artist', and has a right to determine how 'their' content is enjoyed. If they wanted to exclude blue-eyed left-handed people from seeing Titanic, they have every right to do so.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
If I give you the name of something, I have not given you the thing itself. Isn't that clear enough?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
All the DeCSS links are gone??
What fantasy world is this person living in? Perhaps they have a list of the links in the civil action. Perhaps all of those links are gone. That doesn't mean that it's become difficult to get a copy of the DeCSS code.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I've heard that a corporation can be de-chartered, the equivalent of a death sentence. I've never heard of it being applied.
It has been applied in the past, but not for around 100 years give or take. The legal mechanism to do this is still available. I've come across some campaigns to impose a "corporate death penalty" on various businesses here and there on the web.
For a general primer on the history and evolution of corporate power, along with a call to arms to fight back, check out the Corporate Crackdown at the Adbusters website.
Trickster Coyote
The power of illusion. The illusion of power.
Ideology is for ideots.
They're called "taxes," and the cut that Senators and Representatives get of those taxes is what the employer - the people of the US - pays to their elected employees. Any other money or gift given to those employees to influence a decision is bribery, pure and simple.
Would a corporate employer tolerate their employees taking money to perform actions detrimental to the employer's well-being? Then why do the public employers tolerate it? Campaign finance reform will probably never be passed by the people that live off graft and bribery; perhaps a rather loud uprising might finally force Congress to do the Right Thing?
*rant mode off*
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
In that case, I'm not really saying this to you.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
MIT, IIRC, used this technique to get around US export restrictions on the PGP program. They published it in a book, with instructions on how to run it through an OCR system. Gov't couldn't touch them because books are protected by the 1st amendment.
Best Slashdot Co
For instance, consider the case of the government enacting a bill that makes ISP's liable for any pornography that a minor can access through the ISP. In cases such as this, that industry must be able to argue its case to the congress, informing them of the technical and practical limitations of what can and can't be done.
Other than that clarification, I wholly agree. There's a big difference between corporations having a voice, and corporations drowning all the individuals' voices out.
--
- In response to this threat, the consumer electronics and computer industries have developed technologies that protect from infringement copyrighted works in digital format by denying individuals access to such materials absent some special key or descrambling code, and by disabling users with access from making copies of a work without authorization.
... Joining an international effort to make the Internet a more secure business forum, Congress enacted the DMCA to uphold the integrity of copyright protection in cyberspace
Due to technical limitations, it isn't feasible to implement these copyright protection mechanisms for every device, platform, application, or protocol. As such, the copyright holders get to choose all of these for you.--
If this scares you, then send $100 to the EFF.
My check will be in the mail this evening.
--
My word processor was written by Stanford Professor Donald Knuth. Who wrote yours?
You get what you pay for.
Your typical example does hold in the case of Ronald Reagan (as well as, for example, Charleton Heston) as they WERE democrats until the 1970s. As Reagan put it: I didn't leave the democratic party--the democratic party left me.
Food for through, neh?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
"The question we have to ask is: Is the right to free speech allowed when it directly infringes the rights of another?"
That is completely false, linking DOES NOT DIRECTLY infringe anything. Linking is telling someone where something is, nothing more. Further more, what RIGHTS are being infringed. DeCSS is a program that can be used for many things, and it is not even the best tool to use for "pirating" movies. Add to that the fact that copyright law today is completely unconstitutional in that in the constitution it allows for LIMITED (limited cannot mean longer than the average lifespan) copyright to FURTHER PROGRESS (NOT TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE FOR THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER!!!).
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Remind me not to ever cite in a report something that has the potential of being banned in the future -- because then someone reading my report could bring charges against me for distributing banned material.
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
How can linking to criminal content not be speech when the only difference is that you click on it, instead of copy&paste it into the URL-box in the browser? Also the internals of HTML support this view. If code is speech, and HTML is code. Then how can a link-tag not be speech? If code isn't speech, then how can mathematic formulas be speech? The only difference is that one is procedural while the other is functional.
Basically, there are no fundamental grounds for banning linking. Linking is a quote, and a quote is a mentioning of something or someone. If you make linking to criminal content illegal, you logically also illegalize speaking about criminal activities, criminal sites and criminals, even reporting it.
Oh wait! I hear you now: INTENT. Intent is the keyword here. Somehow, the judges and juries are supposed to read the vict.. criminal minds. What a nice curtain to hide behind when you've lost the argument, isn't it? So after all this talking we still have to use violence to sort things out. Besides, it will win you another election if you start a war..
Does the means REALLY justify the ends, when nobody feels safe putting something on the "World Wide Web"? What was great about the Internet is surely lost to lust for more money and power anyone else can spend their lifetimes.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I know "thought-crime" is supposed to act on /. readers like a bell for pavlov's dogs, but if this is how you define it, you better make room for a lot of thought crimes in the law. There are few crimes where intent and motive are not vital criteria for whether a crime has been committed, what the crime is and what the sentance will be.
The fact that you can come up with tricky little grey areas where intent will be relevant doesn't make the law a thought crime anymore than grey areas in the murder laws make them thoughtcrimes. Trying to say it does just makes you look silly, (and unfortunately can implies that there are no good arguments against the law. Don't want that.)
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
hint: if you make these sort of statements in a public forum and they can be tied definitively back to you, that would be a good start. If you point to the site as a "Good source of DeCSS information" and tell everyone to "be sure to check the links page!" it would also become a wee bit obvious.
Generally, I would imagine that any action that clearly communicates the "value" of your page to seekers of DeCSS will also communicate your intent to anyone who would wish to make an issue of it. But you can play the Executive Ice Scraper if you want.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
IIRC, a Supreme Court decision back around the turn of the last century granted corporations the same rights and status as people. I don't know the case, but it involved a strike and possibly a Union. The Court decided that the "rights" of the business were being compromised, and order the workers back on the job. Nor do I remember enough if the workers were underpaid, overworked, or subjected to undue hazard. But given the era, I suspect all three.
Come back to the present, and look at the topic of campaign finance reform. A key argument against it seems to be that in this context money=speech, and corporations have the same rights to free speech as people. In this case, that means the right to donate large sums of money. This argument has met with some success, though I don't know the whole track record.
On the converse side, if a person had knowingly sold a known lethal product while denying any such problems with it, I suspect the penalty wouldn't stop at a fine, even a hefty one. If there were further proof of deliberate misinformation on a continuing and systematic basis, and the deaths were in the thousands or more, I wouldn't be surprised to see Murder-1 charged.
I've heard that a corporation can be de-chartered, the equivalent of a death sentence. I've never heard of it being applied.
When you add this and the superior (life+95 vs life+75) copyright rights of corportations, it's clear that in the Orwellian sense, they are more equal than us.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
so by his thinking, if I link to a picture of a pot plant, its the same as distributing that same pot plant?
and the term "banned content". why does this just give me the shivvers?
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I would love to see any piece of government try to take on the New York Times, for something that they printed. People don't think it's any big deal, just because it's some rag called 2600, and its run by those "evil hacker types". Bush seems to have wasted no time in putting pressure where his funding wants it to be. He's barely been in for a month, and we are pretty close to yet another war with Iraq. And our good buddy Ashcroft, who has "sworn to uphold the law" even if the law was flawed from the start. The DMCA is a royal pieve of horse-doo, and I don't doubt that it will get repealed, but my mind cannot fathom what damage will be done by corporations and our government until that time. A "Salem reverse-engineering Trial"? You can bet your ass, I'll be on the first bus to Canada when that happens, then I won't have to fight in Bush's pointless little war, either.
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
Thanks, at least w/r/t the 2600 countdown.
I'm still checking out the possibility of steg.
Ruling The World, One Moron At A Time(tm)
"As Kosher As A Bacon-Cheeseburger"(tmp)
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Wait a second...
If PGP could by booked, why not DeCSS?
One could argue that PGP's main purpose is to keep information private from the ever-growing prying eyes of FedGov.
PS: I don't know WTF is going on, but at 2600's website, there's this funky Japanese or Chinese character and a chant..
Anyone have a clue what that is?
Yesterday, it looked like a 'pi' with the top bar as the top border of a square; today it looks like a capital 'ksi', three horizontal parallel lines with the middle line shorter than the other two.
Something is going down @ 2600. They don't have their usual news page, and they are adding a different character and chant everyday.
(The name of the image's file is 'preksbauv.gif', I dunno if that's the language, or if there's steg involved... more later)
Ruling The World, One Moron At A Time(tm)
"As Kosher As A Bacon-Cheeseburger"(tmp)
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
-Dave
And while you're at it, be sure to pick up one of the DeCSS t-shirts from Copyleft -- $4 goes to the EFF with each purchase.
Get 'em while they're still legal -- I bought mine today.
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
I'm working on the thought that you are talking about Nvidia here and if so you are wrong. While I *really* wish that the drivers where open the simple fact is the current GNU/Linux drivers work as well or better than the current winders drivers. Other than that really the rest of your post made no sense whatsoever.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Why? So you can further associate the idea of free speech in technical areas with the notion of "computer criminal" in the eyes of the government, the corporations, and most importantly, in the mind of the public?
I do not have a signature
I don't need to realize that. I'm already fully aware of that. The suggestion was to deface the MPAA website, which has nothing to do with helping people understand that digital information is no different than analog information. All it will do is help reinforce the notion that geeks are lawless twerps, so whatever they want to do should probably be illegal.
By the way, the ACLU is already actively involved in the DeCSS case. So I don't know how much more "on there ass" [sic] they can be. So for the record, have you written a contribution check to the EFF or the ACLU, and made a decision to be active in NOT purchasing a DVD player? I think this is probably a better solution than committing felonies only tangentially related to the unjust law. Now, nothing will prevent me from owning the DeCSS source and compiling and using it and sharing it(except the lack of DVDs to use it on). Any part of the DMCA which proscribes such activities is unjust, and those are the laws to break. Not the laws that make sense.
I do not have a signature
Donation dollars at work?
Time to send more $ to the EFF, that's for sure.
sulli
RTFJ.
No! Your use of the word "licence" plays into the MPAA's hands. You are purchasing a copy of the work, and you have the right to do whatever the fuck you want with it. Or you should!
sulli
RTFJ.
... [t]he repeal of the DMCA or (more likely) the passage of the Digital Millennium Consumer Fair Use Act.
...
Wait... shouldn't we call this the Digital Millenium Consumer Act of Fair Use? That way we can call it the DMCA-F.U.
*grin*
-Trikster
Judging by the opinion expressed in the brief, it seems that posting actual source code is where the mistake occurs. If an outline of the algorithim, possibly with an algorithim that generates keys, this would seem to qualify as a discussion, which is legal under the DMCA...
Most people shot with guns die, and its not usually legal. Maybe death seems worse than mabey theft. But I can go into any spy store and buy a set of lock picks so that's not the problem. Everyone who drives cars breaks a traffic law at one time or another, right? I don't think anyone really thinks this is about what's right or wrong. MPAA knows that control of the information at all levels (creation, distribution, and use) is what keeps them in business, and anyone else who interferes with them, be they hobbiest, a satanic penguin molester, or Joe Regular is a threat to their bottom line.
I would imagine event the woman prosecuting the case (Mary Jo White, (212) 637-2741) has a thought process something like this:
If there's any truth to that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" jive, then maybe Clinton deserves some major props for pardoning Rich.In a way, how can one be surprised by this? Ammused I understand, but surprised? Naw.
However, I am somewhat curious as to exactly when America returned to an Oligarchy (tyranny of the few, the rich)? Government, particularly the American government, is not in place to serve the intrests of a select few. It's job is to serve the people by providing sanctuary for the unfettered exchange of ideas. I fail to see how this action can even pretend to work to that end. FDR was something of a socialist, and did a lot for returning government to the people. I can't see the idealism of the 60's being at fault. The deceite of the 70's, is that when we the people began to give our government away? Was the apathy of the 80's to blame? I'm interested to know when exactly we passed that critical point where we lost the balance of influence.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
So if distributing "harmful matter" (what Jello Biafra was accused of) is criminal, or if distribiting DeCSS or other "infringing speech" is criminal, AND if creating a link to such a site is equivalent to the "crime" itself, what will become of search engines?
So, soon all the search engines will universally adopt the list of banned sites from BESS, Netnanny, etc., and then the net will be truly safe for children! Nothing controversial, no illegal speech, no forbidden speech, and we will all be using our cable modems to download live streams of Barney and Teletubbies...
QUICK! Grab all the Bill Hicks
Here is an explanation.
Extend this reasoning to a hypothetical situation.
You are standing at a bus stop. A scruffy lookin' dude asks where he can buy some crack. You don't sell crack but suggest the thugs on the corner at the end of the block.
He (actually a cop) arrests you for linking to illegal contraband.
You knew where it was and that is good enough.
You know, it is kind of funny to watch the United States of America slowly erode the rights of its citizens.
I really can't see the justification for linking as speech. However, the worse issue is that when you link to a site, you have no control over the content of the site you linked to. If you become legally responsible for someone else's content when you link, you have big problems. The slippery slope gets ugly when you have to sort out whether the "intent" was to aid in the distribution of "illegal information" (a phrase that makes me shudder), whether search engines are responsible, and whether you can legally tell a search engine to avoid a known "bad" site.
One aspect of this which I do not remember seeing justified is why a DVD player should need authorization from the MPAA. Or to put it another way, what gives the MPAA (and others) the right to dictate how their content should be enjoyed?
When you purchase copyright a copyright work, be it a book, picture, DVD, CD, VHS or cassette tape, you are purchasing the right (or a licence) to enjoy the copyright work. I do not disagree with the copyright owners wishing to control the copying of the work, broadcasting and public showing, but I fail to see why they should also have (or claim) the right to dictate the environment in which the work may be enjoyed in private. If you purchase a book or painting, the copyright owner does not tell you where you are allowed to read the book or hang the painting. Once we purchase the DVD, it should be no business of the copyright owner what equipment we use to view the content. The US DCMA states that none of its provisions remove the "fair use" use rights given by other copyright laws but recent events make this claim rather suspect.
It is doubtful that the Bush folks would have put something like this just since the swearing in, or even since the election, since they were so distracted with other business.
This simply isn't true. Beurocracies chug along just fine during political transitions and have for the last century (at least). You are probably right in that the foundation was almost certainly laid under the Clinton administration, but you are wrong to assign innocence to the Bush administration.
Hollywood has its claws into both parties. Actors and Artists are typically in the Democratic camp, while Recording and Movie Executives are typically in the Republican camp. I say typically; there are obvious exceptions, such as Actor turned President Ronald Reagan. In any event Hollywood and the Copyright Cartels hold a great deal of influence over both parties.
Remember, it was a Republican congress who passed the DMCA into law, and a Democratic president who signed it.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
That is why this case should keep going straight to the Supreme Court, where they will reaffirm the fair use doctrines
You know, there's this Slashdot assumption that 69th Amendment to the Constitution grants "Fair Use" rights that can't be overruled by some little ol law.
Well, it isn't true: Fair Use is a concept defined by copyright law. And if the copyright law (the DMCA) says that "bypassing an access control device is illegal and not Fair Use", then that's the way it is. So the real solution is 1) Mass Civil Disobedience, which will lead to 2) The repeal of the DMCA or (more likely) the passage of the Digital Millennium Consumer Fair Use Act.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Fair Use is a concept defined by copyright law
Fair Use is a legally inherent part of the Constitutionally authorized Copyright laws (at least that's what the Supreme Court said when they allowed "Fair Use" to be a defense).
So no, Congress cannot legislate Fair Use away (short of a Constitutional amendement). This is one of the arguments the EFF has been using -- that Congress simply CANNOT restrict the fair use of material even if they 100% wanted to with the DMCA (and of course, they DIDN'T intend to, which is one of the other major arguments).
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Distribution of DeCSS certainly advanced my state of knowledge of encryption technology; so much so that I was able to understand from it how the encryption method worked and submit suggested improvements to the algorithm.
So how do I submit a paper contradicting the opinion in the Governement brief?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I think that 2600 has very valid legal ground and the release of open source players for Linux validates the very useful application of this technology. But the Supreme Court could decide that this laws was within the jurisdicition of congress and that Kaplan's interpretation is accurate. Then where would we be?
We need to find a louder voice in the place where the bad laws get made. We need to have greater control over our destiny than hoping that we get lucky with the Supreme Court. It's too late now for 2600 to take a different approach, but if this goes badly, we need to be ready with a backup plan (besides moving to countries with well written laws).
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Sounds good - maybe a book on encryption techniques both successful and unsuccessful and why the bad one fail, and maybe even a chapter on the implications to the Joe Public of encryption. Of course as suggested CSS and DeCCS should be one of the case studies on the book. The advantage of a book, is that even if it can't be published in the US, at least it could be published in Europe, or anywhere else that feels that people have rights - heck it would be ironic if we saw this being published in China.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
With each DeCSS shirt, Copyleft also provides a printout copy of the entire css-auth/DeCSS code. If hardcopy is the limiting factor between "speech" and "not speech", then I'd just love to see the MPAA try to get a flyer with the code banned.
.zip archive? The code is public record, as well as a form of protest; can it still be blocked? Especially if the page also explains why the code is being posted?
The css-auth song was removed from MP3.com as "objectionable" material. I suspect there's a lot of material on MP3.com that depicts violent or misogynistic acts, or contains various forms of hate speech. I bet that material never gets touched.
In fact, the code is now public record; the MPAA's lawyers entered the code into evidence, and forgot to have that exhibit locked away from the public!
If we're playing the "intent" game, then posting the code with the intent of allowing others to download it and rip DVDs can be blocked. Posting the code with the intent to protest the MPAAs actions can easily be considered speech; rather like abortion protestors busting out the pictures of aborted fetuses at clinic rallies (then decrying violent images on TV, but that's another issue, and if you think I'm getting into that one right now, you're nuts).
What if I post the code on an HTML page, not in a tar.gz or
Once again: MPAA lawyers, you don't like it, come get me . I have a lot of time, and the will to defend my right to protest, and to view my legally-purchased movies on a platform of my choice.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
The government isn't hopping so much on the side of big business, as it is defending the constitutionality of a legislative action. In a meaningful sense, a constitutional attack on a statute *IS* an attack on a legislative act, and thus the government tends to file, sometimes even lukewarm, briefs in support of statutes -- even when the policy of the statute is unconcionable.
In otherwords, a government brief in support of the constitutionality of a statute is a pretty routine act.
Still, I wish they had stayed out of this one. Their silence would have been deafening.
I would have expected this in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. It is also very likely that 2600 will lose. MPAA chose an excellent target, a magazine which provides information to "hackers". Hackers who are typified to mom and dad as heroin addict looking individuals who are destroying their email, stealing from their bank accounts, and compromising national security for "fun".
Now, if we consider the simplest case where OS company "M" asks video card vendor "V" to stop anyone attempting to write a driver for another OS. Ingenious in a way that it would prevent anyone from expanding say OS "L" to include the newest technology.
We can add that anyone caught linking to the new "illegal" driver as guilty of a crime (based on the ruling above) and the rest is history... If you find this unlikely, consider your favorite video card and on which OS they sell the most. In the name of "quality" they want to ensure that only the best drivers, code, programs, data, links, etc. are available to their customers.
Now consider the experience level of the average PC user who has gotten 50 ILOVEYOU messages (and probably opened five), who do you think they will believe?
"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act];
If a "technological measure" can be circumvented, there's no way it can be described as "effective".
Kill 'em with their own words. ;-)
PS Sorry about the subject line. Something must be interfering with transmission.
--
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
Computer programs are "essentially utilitarian" works. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 704 (2d Cir. 1992). Simply put, they are articles that accomplish tasks." Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1524 (9th Cir. 1992). DeCSS -- the computer program "[a]t the bottom of this case" -- is no different. Brief for Defendants-Appellants ("Appellants' Br.") at 2. As the district court found, "DeCSS, like any other computer program, is a series of instructions that causes a computer to perform a particular sequence of tasks which, in the aggregate, decrypt CSS-protected files." Universal City Studios, 111 F. Supp. 2d at 328-29; see also Appellants' Br. at 2 ("DeCSS decrypts the data on a DVD and stores it."). This function is entirely nonexpressive, and thus does not warrant First Amendment protection.
Fine-- computer programs are simply "articles that accomplish tasks." They are not speech, says the government.
In order to be a candidate for copyright protection, however
In no case does copyright protection of an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, ... design, and three-dimensional works, while not protected by copyright, may be protected by a patent.
See http://www.acs.ttu.edu/documentation/laws/lpc5.htm l#205.
If a program is not free speech, and it's not copyrightable, then it seems the government is saying that the DCMA does NOT cover any kind of software, and that any copyright notice on (non-content) with regards to software is misapplied.
The DMCA doesn't cover patents (does it?) so I guess it's still legal to use DCSS-like programs for the purposes of copying/accessing any copy-protected software.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
This is just the sort of ridiculous position I've come to expect from the US government, and with Bush in office I'm sure we can expect alot more "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" play with big corps.
As much as the Usurper annoys me, and as opposed to his notions as I am on several issues, it is IMHO unfair and inaccurate to imply that he will be engaged in any more quid-pro-quo money for politics behavior than his Democratic counterparts. The difference mainly lies in who the parties of the transaction will be (e.g. Big Oil vs. Big Law Firms), not the quantity of sleazy bargaining engaged in.
As far as this particular issue is concerned (Copyright Cartels stealing our rights through corrupt legislation bought and paid for), both parties are equally reprehensible. It was a republican congress that passed the bill, but a democratic president who eagerly signed it into law. The same is true for encryption and a number of other issues that concern technology folks BTW -- on the issues many of us really care about, there is no difference between the two major parties, and hence no real choice.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I think these opening sentences sum up their views quite clearly:
To them the Internet is nothing more than a new distribution platform for commerce.
Think about it: we don't let anyone run a Television station nor do we allow anyone run a Radio station (reinforced recently by the veto of low power radio licenses). These are two mediums, distribution channels, owned and operated by Very Large Corporations. Suddenly the Internet comes along and allows anyone to speak their mind. Not only in text but in sound and video. What a scary thought.
What if someone makes a news site with fake information? The public would be mislead. What is someone makes an audio recording with hateful or vulgar speech? Can't let the children hear Bad Words. What if someone makes a video with naked boobies? Shock, horror and shame.
I believe the first part of the Internet to be regulated will be Medical Information. Doctors are already bitching when patients learn about alternative therapies. "We can't have them reading that voodoo. You have to help us Uncle Sam." It seems logical to me. You're dealing with Public Health which is an issue that tugs at emotions almost as well as "Save the Children."
The systematic destruction of Freespeech on the Internet has already begun. It's simply a matter of where the Government and Corporations will strike next.
--
Scott Brady
Actually fair use is what is required to reconcile copyright law with the First Amendment. Having a copyright on something includes the right to forbit others to speak it. Without the limitations on copyright that have been codified as fair use, copyright law and the First Amendment could not be reconciled.
We really deserve everything we get. How many people sit in here whining about the violations of our rights under the guise of Copyright Protection, and then do NOTHING to influence Congress on the issue. We now have DMCA protected books critical to Dental Education which can be aquired only under a limited license for 180 days at a time. Our basic ability of read infomration is under attack by the printed publishers, using the DMCA as it's stick. We have Pat Schroeder telling us Libraries are a communist plot.... and narly a voice is heard from informed Open Sourced people. Where is the Open Source Lobby on capital hill? http://www.nyfairuse.org
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Has anyone published a DeCSS book? I think it would be a very interesting end-run around the DMCA. Publish a book, which includes the source code to DeCSS, details the algorithm, and perhaps includes some background information on what has happened. Include an "e-book" CD containing the exact text of the book, in ASCII or HTML format, for online reading.
...
I for one would pay as much as $50 for such a book (even though I have no use for DeCSS and already have a copy of the code in text format, printed out before it was banned). I would probably be wiling to pay twice that if some portion of the profits were to go to the EFF and/or 2600's legal defense fund.
It might be interesting to publish such a book and donate it to a number of libraries around the country as well
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If I link to an "illegal" site, does that make my site "illegal" too? If so, what happens when you link to my site?
The whole internet is supposedly within 7 hops of any page. It looks like the courts have just ruled the internet illegal.
Ah, well. Free speech was a nasty ideal anyway. You could end up with people criticising their governments or something. Maybe even going so far as to criticise a corporation or a consortium.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Ladies and Gentlemen, I guess it's time for us to show where we stand on this question.
To do this, there are only two (legal) solutions I can think of:
Support the EFF
Support 2600 Magazine
Please do it now. I know I will.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
It strikes me that, perhaps, the US government has just about finished it transformation from a government of the people, by the people, and for the people into a government of the businesses, by the businesses, and for the businesses. Of course, since a corporation is a legal person in this country, perhaps they've just misplaced part of their heads.
The scary thing is that almost nobody sees what's going on. When those that do see the dangers have the audacity to talk about it, they are branded as conspiracy theorists et al. I can hardly put forward the idea that our freedoms are being usurped by big business before I'm dismissed as a radical. If eternal vigilance is indeed the price of freedom, I'm afraid that the days of freedom are limited. Perhaps there are still many left, but at the rate we're progressing, we're getting dangerously close to the point where nothing short of a full-fledged revolt will have any chance at producing change.
We're precipitously close to an Orweillian society run, not by governments, but by big businesses who all but own the governments. If such a dystopia comes in to power, I'm afraid it may be extremely difficult to break the bonds of socio-economic tyrrany. At our current progress, such a system will at the very least attempt to take over; I can only hope that we can work fast enough and be strong enough to topple it in its infancy.
These Things take a while to prepare, so I wonder if this is something that was developed under the Clinton Administration, and then now has the blessing of the Bush. It is doubtful that the Bush folks would have put something like this just since the swearing in, or even since the election, since they were so distracted with other business.
This then presents the picture of both political parties supporting the people with deep pockets. Again not unexpected. But upsetting, since you would hope that *someone* was not corrupt.
This separate from the merits of the debate to begin with.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
It's the same tactic as sleazy ambulance chasers use in rape cases.
Jury, look at this women: she drinks, she hangs around bars and she dresses in skimpy skirts. Dear jury: Anybody can see that she actually wanted it
The strategy is to get somebody convicted (or vice versa) simply on moral grounds which are not whatsoever related to the cause
This, in my book is blattant abuse of the judical system.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I think that it is clear: A Corporate Republic will always choose IP, a Democracy will choose freedom. Enjoy the extra 0.0004 cents squelching DeCSS just might bring to shareholder dividends in a few years. You will not be able to link (speak, what's the difference?) freely because of it.
That is why this case should keep going straight to the Supreme Court, where they will reaffirm the fair use doctrines, since after all, it is not illegal that you use whatever player you wish. Truly, it is the movie industry with their DVD region coding, and their "authorized player/use" that violates fair use and infringes on the rights of the users
Regarding the DMCA, I would have to say that I hate this legislation. It was done quickly, and with little regard for the actual consumer and rights of individuals. It's doubtful that the Supreme Court could overturn the DMCA based on this case. We will have to wait for another case that clearly infringes on the rights of the consumer(and believe me, it will come), and uses the DMCA as the wonderful law that is being broken in the case. Until then, we should find ways in which to use content within fair use, and wait to be challenged by the powers that be. Then we'll take them to the top.
Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually make my website for other people to look at.
Someone who posted earlier wrote that all of the amateurish "as I read the first amendment" interpretations of the Constitution are meaningless. While I'm sure that the sentence wasn't intended to be a commentary on the state of our country, it actually is an excellent observation. Our views, the views of average citizens, no longer matter. The only views given any consideration are those that come from a source that can provide something in trade for that consideration. Be it campaign contributions, consulting fees, a partnership, whatever, you must have something to offer if you wish to be heard.
Sadly we have no one to blame but ourselves for the current state. We have allowed these circumstances to envelop us one small step at a time. We have done very little to become actively involved determining the direction of our country. Our freedoms have fallen slowly, often for the 'greater good'. Each one brought us closer to today. We look at issues one by one: copyright violations, reverse engineering, hate speech, guns, privacy violations. Each one of these is examined individually, often in times of crisis (the RIAA says "They're stealing our music!"), and a decision is made without really understanding how it might effect the rest of our lives.
I'm not sure of the solution to this problem. Far too many place far too much stock in the word of the mainstream media. That media presents stories in such a way that moves public opinion in the direction they choose, they have had years of practice. The common citizen needs to wake up and see the direction we are heading with each of our choices. Only then can we begin to right the system that has strayed of our course.
alternative:
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --
And you are definitely allowed to make a copy of any content for personal use. And you are definitely allowed to watch any content whereever you are. And silly DVD region codes and encryption is attempted to prevent both. Just imagine you are not allowed to read an original Shakespeare in a non English speaking country. There are so many movies on DVD only available in one region code. Or you are not allowed to cite from a book, as this is prevented by a copy protection.
That commercial thing just should not be the base of every decision. This gonna be much more dangerous than any cracking tool. This type of content protection is even used in agriculture! There are manipulated cereals that only germ if they are treated with some chemicals only available from the seeds company!
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
Mark Twain was right, we have the Best Governement Money can Buy.
Tomorrow is Open.