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.
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.
http://slashdot.org/
The above isn't a link. It is just a URL. It's trivial to automatically make a link of it, though. Something many systems and applications (such as gnome-terminal) do automatically.
Should that be considered linking, or speech?
What about "You can find it on Slashdot". Is that linking, or speech? It would be trivial with gnome-terminal for instance to define a regex that matches any such reference, and creates links to slashdot.org/.net/.com.
The effect is the same. And with the help of applications, it will in many cases be indistinguishable for the end user.
The critical part is that if you are legally obligated not to link to sites containing illegal material, many will not dare link at all, since a site may change at any point, and it may be impossible for you to prove later that the illegal material weren't there when you linked.
Also, for you Americans, your courts has time and time again defended news sources rights to publish material that was either aquired by illegal means (the Pentagon papers spring to mind), or to paraphrase libelous material or other material where the original publication was deemed illegal, because censoring it would prevent the free dissemination also about criticism about the work.
What if free sale of Mein Kampf were forbidden, as it is in Germany (you can get hold of it, but you are required to have a "legitimate" interest in it, for instance for research purposes), and you were not allowed to quote even to illustrate your arguments against nazism? It would strike not only the publishers of the book and those supporting it, but also those opposing the banned work.
In this case the work in question has been deemed illegal by the lower court. And even those opposing it and it's use will risc breaking the law if they link to it even for the purpose of illustrating what they are talking about.
Linking in this respect is akin to quoting, or to giving an ISBN number, or tell that "you can go to that store, and they will have it", all of which is legal.
The really interesting part of this, is that judge Kaplans justification for banning the linking is so thin that there's a good chance a printed newspaper could publish all the links it wanted to decss without the risc of any repercussions, while a website can not (at least not in the form of an actual link).
But the real issue here is that the court is trying to censor what should be protected speech - the decss program itself.
Mark Twain was right, we have the Best Governement Money can Buy.
Tomorrow is Open.