Slashdot Mirror
2600 Responds to Appellate Court
BlueTurnip writes: "The defendents in the MPAA vs 2600 case regarding the dissemination of the DeCSS program have filed their response to the court's questions. The brief does an excellent job of answering the issues raised. I won't repeat them here as one can read them directly." Background: hearing transcript. Update: 05/30 7:19 PM by michael : The brief filed by the MPAA, giving their rather different responses to the same questions, is also available.
However, DeCSS does contain some tables - e.g. the main nonlinear function which is an array of 256 bytes. This table is speech, because it is an essential part of the algorithm. The same non-linear function can doubtlessly be expressed as a code function*, but any table is a priori a function and as such should have the same protection as a function written in code. The principle here is: the medium doesn't matter.
* In fact, in the DeCSS authentication routines, there are tables which are simple bit-functions of the input, but are expressed as tables for speed.
I think it is very likely that they will not be influenced by money and do the legal thing.
The Supreme Court is not worried about stepping on the lower court's toes. The EFF made a good legal case based on law.
The law will prevail. If you don't like the law, get involved and change it.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
The longer answer is that, since fair use is the safety valve by which the First Amendment and copyright exist peacefully, if different media permit different levels of individual expression through fair use, then decisions by Congress to impede the most useful means require justification under the First Amendment. A prohibition on using copy machines to make fair use could not be answered under today's First Amendment law with the retort that one can hire monks to scribe the relevant passages.
I thought that was cute.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
The court's primary source of power is the ability to force congress to conform to their interpretation of the constitution. Allowing this power to take a hit just because one of the parties is big business doesn't seem very consistant (otherwise, Standard Oil would still be the only place to buy gas).
Besides, sooner or later this will get to a court that isn't comprised entirely or Reagan appointees (who, let's face it, tend to be whores to big business).
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Accually even that isn't sufficant to call it illegal.
I have personally used a crowbar to remove a window from a house while the rightful owner of the house was away. Of course I was paid by the owner [replace with a more energy efficant window].
Likewise, I could use Decss to remove the encoding from a DVD so that I can create a snippet for use in a scholarly report.
I thought about this a second, follow me.
Does a machine run C code? Does it run Perl Code?
No, we go to great lengths to translate that language into language the machine reads and understands. Those get 'run'. Programs get written and read and understood by humans. It is their main purpose.
(Further down the path... on a related note and also mentioned in the argument)
Recipies are made for baking cakes? No, ingredients are. Recipies are made for humans to understand and use. Did the recipe tell my arm to add a cup of sugar? No my brain did.
(Back again, and on the mighty "might")
I suppose one might run the program by hand. They might automate a computer to do so. Their argument (as I gather) is that automation or personal execution does not add a non-speach element to expressing the instructions (or in this case expressing a reference to them). Their reasoning did continue along those lines. Whether they argue it successfuly or not is another thing.
~^~~^~^^~~^
--
--
Er, we've been in a digital age for thousands of years. We call the basic unit letters - various combinations of letters can be used to convey information; the letters can be copied and recopied with perfect fidelity.
What's interesting about the current day is not that we're using digital encoding of transistors or magnetic regions but that the COST of recopying a work digitally has become exceptionally low. What was once effectively restricted to publishers due to cost is now in everyone's grasp. Even the publishers. (who could run off a nigh-infinite number of mp3s if they wanted to)
When everyone's effectively just as good of a publisher as a big company is, those big companies need to find ways to artificially hobble the masses. Meanwhile, we begin to wonder what the point of assisting publishers was in the first place. (Copyright doesn't help artists much - if they can't copy a work, what good is it? It permits them to choose a particular publisher, but is of greatest benefit to them, not artists)
-- 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.
That happened in the US too, some time ago. Copyright is a positive right, not a natural one. Unless Congress says that it applies to something, it doesn't. And should they say that it doesn't apply to software, hardcover books or songs by people named Joe, then it doesn't either.
Thus until sometime in the 70's IIRC, software just couldn't be copyrighted. This is where EULAs come from. (which had to be agreed to _prior_ to obtaining the software to be binding)
Eventually, Congress determined that software was worthy of copyright, but this caused a problem in that now the various incidental copies to RAM et al could not be legally made, and EULAs were needed to permit people to do anything with the stuff.
More recently, Congress has determined that although software may be copyrighted, it is also legal to make backup copies and run it so long as it was legally obtained, regardless of a license. Which makes one wonder why we have EULAs....
There are bounds of course on what Congress can do here - they could never eliminate fair use copying for instance, as that derives from over a century of judicial precedent based on the Constitution from which Congress derives its powers. But within their boundaries, you'd be surprised at how arbitrary things could be if so desired. Sadly, they're pushing outwards these days at the behest of their corporate masters....
-- 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.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
Is this really flamebait? Should it have been mod'ed down? Or is this a dissenting opinion? I don't really see anything personal in this. Maybe the comment about his expectations that Eric Corley will lose and face time in prison. But, come on, slashdot moderators. I, for one, like to read dissenting opinions. It keeps me up to date on what the "opposition" is thinking. I hate it when the moderators take an honest opinion and mod it down.
--Be human.
I have a similar idea.
If reverse engineering software for the purposes of compatibility is legal and
If the contents of a DVD can be considered a piece of software.
Then it follows that reverse engineering a DVD in order to assure compatibility with a Linux system is also legal. Unlike a celuloid film, a DVD movie cannot be held up to the light and viewed by a person. Unlike a VHS tape, it cannot be decoded into a video signal through a bit of analog circuitry. It requires a computer (usually embedded in a DVD player) in order to produce the signal that can be viewed by the user.
Since it is a set of instructions for creating a video and audio signal, that requires the use of a computer to view, I submit that the contents of a DVD constitute a piece of software.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
The MPAA claims in their brief: "The trial testimony was unanimous (from both sides) that DeCSS performs two functions: it decrypts an encrypted DVD movie file and then copies it to the user's computer hard drive or other storage device." In which to my reading sais that they claim it CAN'T be used for streaming (ie to play a DVD to the screen) - of course they are full of it and their brief misrepresents reality ....
I take a slightly different read from this. MPAA claims that because you have access to the unencrypted signal, this violates the CSS agreement. They have collusion with the hardware and closed software players not to allow the user to redirect the unencrypted signal, but the problem is that I could buy a DVD and a drive for my computer without ever signing away my rights to use the two on a Linux machine. In this case, I hope common sense will prevail in that if you buy DVDs and a DVD drive, then you can watch said DVDs at home without any other strings attached.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
DECSS is not a weapon, Marge. It's a tool. Like a butcher knife, or a
harpoon, or...uh, a...an alligator.
with apologies to Homer Simpson.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
I disagree. If 2600 loses, it will not be because of their "hacker reputation". First Amendment cases that make it to high courts tend to be aware that it is easy to support speech we agree with. The Supreme Court and to a lesser extent, the Appellate courts have dealt firmly with laws purporting to be for our own good and they have permitted the publication of books containing bomb-making instructions. They have permitted the leafletting in municipal plazas by those who encourage the annihilation of Africans/Jews/handicapped/people who don't eat Oreos. Compared to evaluating whether the American Nazi Party can hold a parade in predominantly-Jewish Skokie, IL, the question of whether some longhaired hippie computer freak can link to computer code is...not so imposing.
It was brought up before the initial trial that Judge Kaplan had ties to the entertainment industry that by all rights should have led him to recuse himself. I do not know of any such ties within the Appellate Court.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
In Australia, the courts initially ruled in just this manner - that it didn't fit under the original definition of what was copyrightable. For a little while people were copying software left, right, and centre, until political lobbying from people like Microsoft saw the law in Australia changed to explicitly include computer software under the definition of what is copyrightable.
Go you big red fire engine!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The MPAA is going about this in a fundamentally unsound manner. They consistently argue by analogy, comparing DeCSS to some bad physical thing or disseminating it to some bad physical act, and often arguing that said thing or act would be illegal.
Well, now, wait a minute. To be fair, both sides are arguing from analogy. In a case where the issue at hand has never been directly dealt with by a court before, that's all the lawyers on either side have to work with. MPAA lawyers argue that disseminating DeCSS is analogous to some real-world criminal act, and the EFF argues that, no, it's more appropriate to say that disseminating DeCSS is analogous to these other cases dealing with the dissemination of these other types of information. Just knocking them for arguing by analogy is not much of a criticism - very often, that's all you *can* argue. All you can do is present your analogy, and hope that the court finds it more compelling/reasonable/logical/palatable than the other guy's analogy.
That being said, I know which I fnd more compelling, anyway. Now I gotta go find this Bartnicki case and spend some time with that...
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Their choices of precedents seem to be targetting their analogies, rather than the actual situation.
;)
Well, sure. You're obviously not sneaky enough to be a lawyer
Seriously, though, they both seek to present their respective cases in the most favorable light possible. The MPAA wants it to be seen as some nasty back-alley criminal operation, while the EFF wants everyone to bask in the glorious golden sunshine of the First Amendment. So, the MPAA is forced to argue that, while at first blush it may seem to be a straight First Amendment case, they think that these other (less noble) cases are more similar to what 2600 did. You may disagree. Truthfully, I do too. But they don't have to convince us, just the court...
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
RMS paints a grim picture in The Right to Read. How sure can we be that he's wrong?
We have a responsibility. We must educate others. We must take some of the profits we make in a market which values our skills and contribute to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
-Dan
I have written a truly remarkable operating system which this sig is too small to contain.
This is arguable, I think. After all, the decoding key is, in essence, a "password".
Imagine someone in the prohibition era ( a strangely apropos setting for this analogy) sending a message to a group of like-minded individuals that says "To get into the speakeasy, go to the corner of 5th and Main street, walk down the stairs, and tell the guy at the door 'Joe sent me.'".
"Joe sent me" is the "specific key" to get into that speakeasy. Does that make the "Joe sent me" part of the message a non-speech element?
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Oh, yes, and before somebody points out that speakeasies were illegal during prohibition, imagine that 'Joe sent me' is the password to get into a number of establishments, some legal and some not. There, now the analogy fits a little better. There are "infringing" uses (getting into a speakeasy) and "non-infringing" uses (getting into the exclusive chess-playing club run by the Mafia boss who happens to also be a chess fiend...), just as the decryption key could, hypothetically, be used to simply watch a legally-purchased DVD or, also hypothetically, to make a decrypted 6GB file that someone wants to clog their broadband lines with nonstop for a day or two just so their buddy on the other side of town can download an illegal copy of it...
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
I whole heartedly agree that 2600's argument style reflects favorably on their case. It is a much more honest and legitimate technique. The BS that the other two lawyers (read the transcript of the trial) tried to pull is one of the reasons that I have overall unfavorable feelings towards the whole legal proffesion.
As for stronger chances, it worries me that the judges even considered 2600 to be any different from the New York Times. In the transcript, they point out that 2600 is arguing as if everybody had been injoined from distributing DeCSS, rather than just them. At another time, one of the judges says something along the lines of "the injunction is very specific: YOU can't distribute DeCSS," and then hints that as such the 1st Amendment is not applicable.
Indeed, it scares me that they would consider the injunction and the lower court's interpretation of the DMCA to be constitutionally valid for the simple reason that only one person's speech is being controlled. A quote I've seen that well expresses my feelings on this is
The region-coding stuff is a restraint-of-trade issue, and perhaps an unlawful consipiracy to reduce competition. Someone else should take it up but again it's irrelevant to this case.
Oh yeah -- I got interrupted composing and forgot the best part -- patents don't last as long as copyright.
That could have a chilling effect on the information economy, but it could also have some positive benefits:
- Much of the Art is published already, prior art abounds for a lot of the field.
- Longer cycle times (due to the broader ownership rights of patents) mean more time for debugging and, potentially, application of stronger liabilty standards. Liability for an expression is much more limited than liability for a defective device.
- Therefore, better code and better remedies -- look out Bill :-)
Yeah, it's utopian, but it's fun.
That isn't entirely accurate either. A consumer grade DVD writer will not write to the CSS portion of the DVD. However, a professional grade can and must be able to. A professional grade DVD writer is what is used to create the master to build the press for mass production. This master DVD must be exactly identicle to what is to be produced.
This is actually how the big DVD piracy rings do things. They create an identicle bit by bit copy of a DVD using a professional grade DVD writer and then use that DVD to create a press.
BTW, the difference in price between the consumer and professional grade DVD writers is about $10,000+ so everyone isn't about to go out and buy one. This difference in price is attributed to the MPAA to keep the professional DVD writers out of consumers hands so that they can't create playable DVD's. The only hardware difference between the two is the lock on writing to the CSS segment of the DVD.
He's a principled guy that also has to pay the bills? I don't know, it is an interesting juxtaposition.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
It would also be trivial to modify DeCSS so that it would never open a file. If it's only output is to STDOUT, this argument goes right out the door.
Bad laws deserve to be challenged. Civil disobedience is just another tool for challenging them (among other things - the greater good etc). However it is not the only tool. We can also boycott the product, start library clubs (of dvds) etc.
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
When I read the report of the court, I had the following impressions :
1) Judges bashing 2600
2) Judges becoming interested... They prolongated the 2600 talk time and continued to ask question that were in no way to 'destroy' their defense
3) Judges seemed to "yawn" at the 2 attackers... and seemed to react "and if they were really trying to screw the honest people with their restrictions"...
4) Judges stopped the second attacker (time over man) to return to 2600 spontaneously and promptly.
5) they left more way to 2600 to express their views by asking questions where MPAA and such answer are already known (always same arguments) but really open questions for 2600
It's only some impression, IANAL, only a man...
Judges seemed to begin with a small bias toward MPAA but to have turned that biase toward 2600 during the auditions.
But there are more and more process about computers and related things... and judges begin to know more and more about that domain... and perhaps can they be not so easily fooled as before...
If it's like in Belgium, judges can't be fired once they are in place (in order to avoid political pressure)... and so, they could think as men and face the MPAA and such... But American law may be different... Anyway, I didn't think that the outcome was bad for 2600...
You're forgetting that there *are* Nazis on the Supreme Court: Scalia, Renquist and Thomas.
Reality has a liberal bias
Uh, you could easily write a program that would take any strictly formatted computer code, and transform it into grammatical, meaningful English prose. You could also write a program that would take that English prose and transform it back into strictly formatted computer code.
The distinction between parameters and algorithm are vague and unimportant. You could include several decoding keys as a part of the program and allow the user to choose between them. Now they are no longer parameters.
Of course, the algorithm and the parameters are both speech. Now, if you want to tell me that this sort of speech is restricted, there are ways you can defend that position. But saying that it is not speech is silly.
I thought that was the whole point of the folks obsessively encoding DeCSS in different formats. What if DeCSS were encoded as a song? Is it speech, then? A poem? A picture?
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
DeCSS is a device (configured as a program, although it could as easily have been configured as a physical machine, i.e., a "black box") that accomplishes a mechanical task, namely descrambling and decrypting an encrypted, scrambled DVD and copying its content to a hard drive. It is no more "speech" than a key to a library or museum (or a crowbar that could force open their doors) is "speech."
The Declaration of Independence is a device (configured as prose, although it could as easily have been configured as a physical machine i.e., a "black box") that accomplishes a mechanical task, namely telling off King George.
Of course DeCSS can be implemented as a physical device! So can all speech! If that's the only thing I ever learned from my algorithms class, then so be it! The Declaration of Independence is a "Parchment Crowbar" for forcing open restrictive government, asshole!
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
If the view of the MPAA that software is a device, like a crowbar is a device, is followed by the court, this would result in a disaster for the copyright on software. All of a sudden software is no longer an expression with possible artistic value but just a device. In most jurisdictions around the world the design of a strictly functional device cannot be copyrighted. It can be patented and it's appearance can be protected through design law, but no copyright.
-- Spelling and grammar errors tend to be a sign of erroneous thinking.
to make a decrypted 6GB file that someone wants to clog their broadband lines with
actually it's probably not going to be 6gb. it's probably going to be somewhere between 300mb and 800mb, DivX encoded, and spread about various sites linked with the warez community.
the download would be somewhere similar to getting a one or two cd linux distro by downloading the isos.
and it seems to be slowly becoming more common.
i guess it's just another case of people going ahead and doing what's possible, because the people that *should* be doing it don't want to. (online distribution of movies, is what i mean)
matt
The REAL issue, is whether the MPAA has a right to enforce the region coding buggery they've insisted that DVD players implement.
:)
MPAA vs 2600 does unfortunately not touch this issue.
However, there is certainly material for a class-action or antitrust lawsuit regarding the licensing regime forced on DVD player manufacturers.
The probe by the EU competiton directorate seems to be going nowhere. The australians have been making some noise, though.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Appeals occur not when there is a question of fact, but when there is a question of law. It doesn't matter how "blatent" the alleged conduct is, it matters if there is an error of procedure, or a question of constitutionality or ambiguty in the law.
An example closer to the case
1. Discussion of and designs for digital scanning technology and OCR.
2. A scanner and some software implementing OCR algorithms
3. Scanning a book and storing the result on your hard disk
4. Posting the copy of the scanned text on the internet.
As far as I know, 1, 2, and 3 are not illegal, and only 4 is illegal as straight copyright infringement. In fact this case is worse that the 'digital-to-digital' copying of DVD contents, since you are able to do a lot more with the result of the 'analog-to-digital' copy process of scanning text than you can with your original analog copy.
Now compare with DeCSS and the DMCA
1. Discuss and design CSS encryption and decryption - illegal
2. build device for reading DVD and software for decrypting DVD contents - illegal if you haven't paid requisite protection money - I mean, license fees
3. Decrypting contents of legally purchased DVD and saving contents to hard disk - apparently legal assuming you somehow get the bits in step 2, but the MPAA would prefer this to be illegal too.
4. Copying to the internet - illegal, but only by virtue of copyright infringement (as it should be)
From MPAA brief
"Surprisingly, appellants contended on rebuttal that the CSS encryption technology is concerned solely with access and has nothing to do with protecting copyright owners from the risks of unauthorized, uncontrolled copying on the Internet. Judge Kaplan, however, expressly found that DeCSS, which circumvents the technological protection afforded by CSS, "is a free, effective and fast means of decrypting plaintiffs' DVDs and copying them to computer hard drives." "
MPAA contends that this is illegal, because DMCA and Judge Kaplan say it is. The question they chose to ignore is 'Is the DMCA allowed to make it illegal?'
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Justice will prevail.
If you believe that, I have an election I'd like to sell you.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
The following portion of the 2600 filing not only stabs the MPAA/Government's rhetoric directly in the heart, it describes the purpose of DeCSS; to access the content on a DVD and stream it off the disk:
Moreover, even when the "functionality" of DeCSS is considered, it is important to remember the limited function of this particular program. Despite the Government's inflammatory rhetoric, DeCSS is not intrinsically harmful. No one can use DeCSS to "shut off navigational systems on airplanes or shut down smoke detectors in public buildings." By itself, DeCSS does not even perform any infringing activity. A person can use DeCSS to do only one thing -- access the content on a DVD. From that point a person must choose what to do with the decrypted movie. She could play it on a Linux computer, copy a snippet for a book report, make a personal back-up copy, or feed it into a database to be used for scholarly research, all permissible, fair uses of the DVD content. See e.g. Universal, 111 F.Supp.2d at 322.
That pretty much covers everything we've been saying here and elsewhere about the nature of DeCSS.
I also suspect, as many otheres here do, that 2600 will lose, simply because of its "hacker reputation" instead of due to any substantive factors. And that's rather sad. 2600, I believe, was morally correct in this case.
Too bad my opinion won't be the one that decides 2600's fate.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
All Federal courts are created equal in all regards except jurisdiction. A District Court covers only a state, or portions of a state. A Circuit Court (also called a Court of Appeals) covers many Districts, and their decisions supersede those of District Courts. The Supreme Court covers all Circuits and Districts, both in the United States and all its territories, and the Supreme Court's decisions supersede all others.
:)
But just because the Supreme Court's decision-making capability supersedes that of a local District Court, don't think--not for an instant--that a District Court lacks power and authority. All the powers the Supreme Court has at its disposal are vested in the District Court, within the District Court's area of jurisdiction.
(Now, the Supreme Court does have different jurisdiction from District and Circuit Courts, including a little nugget called "original jurisdiction". But that's not the same as the Supreme Court having any additional powers than the lower courts.)
As an example of a District Court finding law to be unconstitutional, Judge Marilyn Patel, operating out of California, found portions of United States export policy to be unconstitutional--and thus, null and void--in Bernstein v US.
Bernstein was the case which demolished many of the restrictions on the export of cryptography, so it's naturally of interest to Slashdotters.
"Well, now, wait a minute. To be fair, both sides are arguing from analogy."
Hm, I wasn't really talking about their choice of precedent - it is certainly a valid question which cases should be chosen as precedent. But the MPAA seems to argue that there's hardly a need for precedent - it's a *digital crowbar* or whatever. Their choices of precedents seem to be targetting their analogies, rather than the actual situation. Perhaps I am biased (I certainly know which side I wish to win), but the choice of Madsen v. Women's Health Center rather than some more directly applicable case such as Planned Parenthood v American Coalition of Life Activists seems to be a deliberate choice of arguing to the analogy, rather than to the logic.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
The MPAA is going about this in a fundamentally unsound manner. They consistently argue by analogy, comparing DeCSS to some bad physical thing or disseminating it to some bad physical act, and often arguing that said thing or act would be illegal.
2600's team argues purely based on the actual situation - comparing dissemination to dissemination, decryption to decryption.
Based on this, I think that 2600's chances are much stronger than most of the posters so far seem to think.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
In Australia, the ACCC (the equivalent of the FTC in the USA) has taken issue with the region coding as an unfair restriction of trade. My guess is that it is highly likely they will win (going by the fact they are fairly conservative and rarely take a case to court that they stand a chance of losing) and hence result in:
i) Region free players being available in Australia, and
ii) Making it illegal for a movie studio to restrict any non-region 4 DVD from being played in Australia if it can be legally imported.
or, the removal of DVDs from the Australian market (not likely).
Of course, this pretty much smashes the whole idea of region coding which requires every country in the world to participate or it won't work for anyone.
In fact, it is actually the region coding that is the primary weapon against the copyright infringement as it prevents the bitwise copies from being made and exported from SE Asia (which has a region all to itself).
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
I have the same feeling, but I just don't understand how the judges could be so far off. The MPAA makes utterly nonsensical arguments in its reply to the questions ("It is no more 'speech' than a key to a library or museum (or a crowbar that could force open their doors) is 'speech.'"). I have a sinking feeling that 2600 is going to be raped again by big money, but the more people that realize how entirely unjust that is, the better.
yes, and it will be exactly these kinds of rulings that will be the downfall of copyright. woo hoo.
How we know is more important than what we know.
No. ... It is no more "speech" than a key to a library or museum (or a crowbar that could force open their doors) is "speech."
Perhaps this has been covered before, but I sincerely believe they're wrong on this point, and it may be a critical point.
Let me break the crowbar up into three different ideas:
- 1. A complete description of what a crowbar or key or lockpick is, and how to use it.
MPPA is saying that DeCSS is the same as #2. And that, while #2 hasn't usually been seen as illegal, the ease with which it can be turned into #3 (because it's digital) means it should be illegal.2. An actual crowbar/key/lockpick that has been constructed from #1.
3. The act of applying a crowbar to a door, or a lockpick to another's locked door.
This is true.
The problem is... not only is DeCSS analogous to #2, but it's also analogous to #1 since the implementation is necessary to be able to describe it, and to talk about it in a defense sort of way. As such, preventing #2 would prevent any discourse about it because #1 isn't allowed unless #2 is.
This is what the court is trying to get at. Is DeCSS #1 and #2? Just #2? Just #1? Neither? If the final answer is "both", then the injunction can't remain.
--
..is the fact that DeCSS has *no* effect on anyone's ability to copy a DVD. I can do a bitwise copy of a DVD, *without* cracking the CSS encoding, and still play it back on any DVD player. Decryption is completely orthogonal to copying of DVD content.
The REAL issue, is whether the MPAA has a right to enforce the region coding buggery they've insisted that DVD players implement. I say NO.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Why, oh why, hasn't the DeCSS team referred to Judge Patel's ruling in the Bernstein case that source code is in fact, speech?
Of course, Patel is also the same person who signed Napster's death warrant.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
We have the same thing with some judges.
Judge Marilyn C. Patel gave the ruling in the Bernstein case that source code was speech. On the other hand, she also gave the ruling in RIAA v. Napster.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
"Our guy" Martin Garbus is the main lawyer behind the initially-successful efforts of Margaret Mitchell's estate to suppress publication of the forthcoming novel by Alice Randall, The Wind Done Gone! (The New York Times had a story on this just four days ago.) Garbus's side is trying to suppress Randall's soon-to-be-published parody of Gone with the Wind, as told from the perspective of a black slave on Tara. It's hard to imagine a more anti-First-Amendment stance to take. So what's the deal? Is it just that he's a lawyer, or does he have a principled view of the world that can include both of his positions in these two cases?
Sorry if someone's already pointed this out on Slashdot. I haven't seen it.
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
That a person might use a computer program to do something does not by itself add "nonspeech" elements to the text.
That a person "might?" Where does "might" come from? I'm not sure where these EFF guys have been, but most programs actually get run much more frequently than they are used for interpersonal communication. I'm not saying that programs aren't used for communication - they are. It's just not their primary purpose.
The question is not whether non-speech elements exists when "programs actually get run", but whether DeCSS itself has non-speech elements. You are confounding the program as an entitiy with the action of running it. Any conduct that exists as part of the latter act is done by the programs user, not the author.
Maybe running programs is a "non-speech element", though most devices that ordinary computers control are speech devices (monitor, printer, speakers), so I won't even cede the point that running a program has non-speech elements. Does running the "authorized" DVD player program have non-speech elements? All it does is show the movie - an action that results in pure expression. Why does that change if the player program isn't "authorized", after all we are talking about non-infringing use of the movie (private performance).
Appellate courts are used to dealing with upholding the rights of a lot more contemptible folks than hackers.
The higher in the system you go, the more sensitive judges are to the fact that you must protect even the scumbags in order for rights to have meaning. Consider the Brandenberg case the judges asked about. It upheld the rights of KKK members to advocate racially motivated violence. Against that backdrop, hackers look like Mother Theresa.
In which to my reading sais that they claim it CAN'T be used for streaming (ie to play a DVD to the screen) - of course they are full of it and their brief misrepresents reality ....
the opposite is also true: "Regardless of what you think about the First Amendment, the concept of Fair Use, or any other evil principle, the simple fact is that 2600 upheld the law by posting and linking to DeCSS. Granted, that law might be a bit democratic, and it may have been passed due to far-reaching vision by our Forefathers, but it's a law regardless, and 2600 proudly showcased that law. What 2600 did was noble, and they now must face the consequences of their actions. Don't like the Constitution? Fine. Post an article criticizing it's validity, write a letter to your representative, and let everyone you know what's happening so that they too will know the truth. That is the responsible solution, not blatantly respecting everything the RIAA and DMCA represents. You can't fight the system with these guerilla tactics and corporate mentality, and expect to be immune to the consequences. The Constitution is WRONG, but let's take our fights to the halls of legislation, not the thoroughfares of the Internet. Justice will prevail."
I dearly hope that 2600 does win. But I don't think it very likely.
Except for the fact that the MPAA is Jupitor size & MS is moon sized (as far as assets go)... MS would loose such a battle if they ever tried & frankly I doubt theyed ever go directly against the MPAA for alot of business reasons...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
"If you lose your key to your house then you are stuck. If you lose your key (an AUTHORIZED DVD player) then you are going to have to purchase another one. There is no need for DeCSS."
What I find particularly amusing about this is that we are allowed to make copies of our keys to get into our houses, in case our originals get damaged, lost, etc. But we are not allowed to make copies of our "keys" to view DVDs? Why not? Those "keys" aren't patented or copyrighted, to my knowledge.
I find your analogy to be flawed.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
That telephone number didn't work for me. Try calling the main office and ask (politely!) for their "Public Affairs Department". from here, I found Main Office Address: Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Motion Picture Association (MPA) 15503 Ventura Blvd. Encino, California 91436 (818) 995-6600
2. How about throwing the "digital crowbar" idea back at the MPAA. Crowbars are used to get into containers when other means aren't available.
Say you have a locked box and no key, it's ok to use a crowbar to get at what's inside of the box. That's exactly what DeCSS does. The 'box' (DVD) is 'locked' (encrypted), and you don't have a 'key' (authorized viewer), so you use your 'crowbar' (DeCSS) to get at what's inside (movie).
Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those that do know me, DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me.
I doubt you would argue the Founding Fathers were wrong
This is Slashdot, right? It's been done.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Eventually we get a battle of the titans, with MPAA saying software isn't speech and M$ saying it is. I don't like the way that we'd have to get there, but that would be one hell of a court case to watch! And I reckon that in the end Bill would win it. See, you've just got to twist the system until it works for you.
Perhaps I missed something, but when was DeCSS declared to be illegal? I just thought this whole deal was because the MPAA didn't like the potential uses of DeCSS and destroyed their content protection scheme and threatened their distribution.
However, I do recall a ruling saying that source code was speech and protected under the first amendment. Thus the source code itself is not illegal and linking to the source should not be illegal. However, using the source code inappropriately should be the only legal action that should be taken and only against users who use the source code illegally (i.e. to copy and distribute DVD's). But if I just want to watch a DVD that I legally paid for and the MPAA just hasn't got around to supporting my platform, that's the MPAA's problem. After all, I don't see 'Requires Microsoft Windows' written on my DVD case anywhere.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Huh? How does that make any sense? It's not the government taking our rights away, it's our legislation and our courts? What the Hell do you think our government is? Are you actually this stupid, or do you just pretend to be to see how many moderators you can get to agree with you?
Yes, corporate lobbying has subverted certain laws in their favor. I'm not sure what can be drawn from that though. Make more laws, and corporations will subvert those too, because corporations always concentrate power and money on laws they don't like to a degree that the public at large never could. Do away with corporations, and you will still have some powerful special interest that will do the same, to other laws.
The only conclusion that comes to mind for me is the same old tired expression: the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Fewer laws and stronger constitutional restrictions on lawmaking are our best protection against any subversion by the Powers That Be.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
Interesting. In many countries, the kkk would have been in violation of hate laws, but 2600 would have violated no law. In the US, with DCMA and no hate laws, it's 2600 who are doing something out of "bad faith". Go figure.
Interesting.......
Are you trying to suggest that the algorithm could be distributed as a form of speach, but that the keys for the algorithm are protected in the same way as a password is?
Like PGP. Anyone can pass the code around. Giving someone the kPGP Key for a bank, on the other hand, would then be illegal.
I don't want this remedy, but it seems reasonably neat. Thoughts?
I am afriad that soon I will not be able to do things because "It may happen" when nothing has ever happened before.
The MPAA statement about Guns having rules against them is valid but ONLY because it has been PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that overt acts of violence come from guns. I do not support Gun Control, but this in NO WAY relates to a product that HAS NOT been proven to have 1 incident of copyright infringement.
This is where I am scared and sadened. My daughter or my Son will not be able to access certain sites in the future because "It may cause people to kill", Wont be able to play games because "It may cause people to freak out". In the end, the freedom from speculatory laws is dying out.
Anyone else see this obvious thread? Or am I totally off my rocker and nothing bad will come of this?
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
Never mind that source almost never gets run
Perl, JavaScript, PHP, they're source and they get run. And yes, qrpff is an implementation of decss in Perl.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Sometimes the only way to get rid of bad law is to FLOUT it
Sometimes you can flout it a little at a time to take advantage of the "slippery slope" phenomenon, by pushing the limits of fair use and creating works that are barely legal (but not in the kid porn sense).
Remember YOU CANNOT DISPUTE A LAW UNTIL YOU ARE CHARGERD WITH VIOLATING IT. One cannot simply say, "I think the DMCA sucks. I'm going to sue the Fed to repeal it." No court will even listen to you.
Except that's exactly what the Eldred v. Reno case is about, suing Attorney General John Ashcroft (no relation to Richard Ashcroft of what was once the Verve, who the Perpetual Copyright Act that Congress passed during Zippergate to escape media attention. Think of it as a double "Wag the Dog": Kosovo was a cover for Lewinsky, which in turn was a cover for the Sonny Bono Act and the DMCA.
Will I retire or break 10K?
MPAA will lose. DMCA will be found unconstitutional, not on First Amendment grounds, but because it goes beyond Congress's patent and copyright powers.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
What, me worry?
Fight Spammers!
{
Lather;
Rinse;
Repeat;
}
Algoritm? Yes
Instructions? Yes
Speech? Yes
Go to the store and buy milk
Algoritm? Yes
Instructions? Yes
Speech? Yes
The examples could go on an on
Algoritm? Yes
Instructions? Yes
Speech? Yes
Think about this.
If I posted a picture on my website of the key to a library, which then anyone could take that picture and have a key made, would I be liable?
I imagine so.
Do we really want to venture into the realm where socially unacceptable knowledge is deemed through inference to be not knowledge?
Interesting question. Our Minister of Culture has just recently announced that public and universoty libraries are required to remove a black list of books from their offering. The list of books include (among other things) any book that denies the existance of the hollocaust during WWII. While I surely do not agree with that denial, I think measures like this are the first sings of radicalism and intellectual poverty.
This is not to say, of course, that I see Bin Laden on the same level as the holocaust, but apparently even though our constitution includes free speech (at least I hope so) our government can do whatever makes them happy with any kind of speech.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
An interesting paper referred to in the EFF 2600 brief is at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =267848
entitled "Locating Copyright Within the First Amendment Skein" by U Texas law professor Neil Netanel. A few excerpts from that abstract:
The big media publishers claim ownership of the means of production for all "intellectual property" and they have bought these new copyright laws from Congress in an attempt to maintain control over all use of "their" products in the new digital age of the Internet.
These media giants have argued (so far successfully) that the First Amendment has nothing to do with copyright law because of the distinction between idea and expression and between expression and action. The courts in Eldred v. Reno (now Eldred v. Ashcroft) against the copyright term expression agreed with this argument (wrongly, I believe).
If courts continue to fail to wake up to the changed circumstances that Professor Netanel notes, then the First Amendment will not protect us when we publish anything on the Internet. First it will be the "hackers," then the rest of us who will be pushed off by these "rent-seeking" monopolists. Look, libertarians, it has now become apparent that it is not government that is taking away our First Amendment rights, it is courts following bad legislation that only favors big publishers.
Professor Netanel is a real conservative who has long resisted the arguments of his more liberal colleagues that Free Software deserves some protection against the media giants using copyright law. We should be glad he is now on our side. The 2600 arguments are strong and deserve to win.
I might agree with you in this case (I'm not sure), but there are times when civil disobedience (aka "breaking the law") is necessary to move change forward. For example, black people sitting in "unapproved" seats on the bus was probably a necessary catalyst to bring attention to the injustice of those laws.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I can't get back into my house...
From the bad guys rebuttal:...the use of DeCSS to decrypt an encrypted DVD has no "speech elements," just as breaking into a museum or library -- or using a computer to break an electronic lock on a library door -- cannot properly be said to have "speech elements."
Brings up an excellent point. Maybe this whole DeCSS decryption isn't speech, and maybe it is bad. So it must be against the law to break into your own house if you lock your keys inside? Because you bought it and own it do you think you have the right to break in? Oh no I got news for you buster, you don't own shit...(Life, Liberty, Property, my ass John Locke)
IMHO you bought the DVD you can wipe your ass with it, as long as you follow the little green screen warning sign at the beginning, or the FBI might get you. I'm trying to be on good behavior just in case someone presses charges for tearing off my mattress tag...
Rehab is for quitters...
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
"This is a radio I purchased" [Show a radio]
"This is a radio I built from directions." [Show a radio hand-built, or from one of those Radio Shack kits]. "Both radios allows me to access copyrighted works. In fact, they decrypt them from their current form of oscillations of radio waves into audible sound so that I may listen to them. This is perfectly legal."
"This is a CD containing PowerDVD, a DVD Player, which I purchased." [Show PowerDVD CD]
"This is a CD containing a DVD Player which I built from directions." [Show a CD containing DeCSS]. "Both DVD Players allows me to access copyrighted works. In fact they decrypt them from their current form of microscopic depressions in the DVD surface into audio and video so that I may watch and listen to them."
"I can give you the radio I built. I can build more and sell them if I choose, or give them away for free. But I can't give you the DVD player I built. I should be able to. I shouldn't have to be a giant corporation to be able to build a DVD player and give it away or sell it. "
But AFAIK, DeCSS (as many programs) has 2 parts: the algorithm and the parameters (the decoding key). Are the parameters a form of speech ? I wouldn't think so.
There is no law of CS that says algorithms must be distinct from parameters. Certainly they can be more general when expressed that way, but it is not necessary. Let's say I'm designing a program to log into one particular account. I could use a general algorithm:
Program 1:Or I could use a more specific one:
Program 2:The line between algorithm and parameters is really indistinct. Perhaps programs like efdtt.c don't actually include the key bits or completely encapsulate their functionality, but there's no reason you couldn't redesign the algorithm to do so. Taken to an extreme, a brute-forcing program would include the functionality of all possible keys. Which part of the source code for that wouldn't be speech again?
This isn't a jury trial. Burglars who've been videotaped have sued homeowners for injuries obtained while in the victim's house!
Just because 2600 Magazine has a "hacker" stigma, Sec. 1201 will not hold up in court if the defendants (Apellees) can't make a strong case.
I think 2600 Magazine will win.
'nuff said.
No one can use DeCSS to "shut off navigational systems on airplanes or shut down smoke detectors in public buildings." By itself, DeCSS does not even perform any infringing activity. A person can use DeCSS to do only one thing -- access the content on a DVD.
There is no First Amendment precedent establishing that a "causal link" between publication of speech and its "improper use" justifies the imposition of intermediate scrutiny.
Under the "Turner" standard, the burden rests upon the government to "demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way.
A prohibition on using copy machines to make fair use could not be answered under today's First Amendment law with the retort that one can hire monks to scribe the relevant passages.
With due credit to the aforementioned and linked article.
Overall they really hit on the "fair use" derivation of the 1st Amendment, which I think is a proper tactic. Fair use isn't too useful if it ain't useful. :>
Religion and science are both 90% crap..but that doesn't negate the other 10%.
Many post are stating the loss of this case because 2600 is a bunch of hackers. The NRA has consistently supported criminals in many of their cases to overthrow bad laws. They typically rejoice if they can support some individual that is not a criminal. We can't just give up and think the judges will throw out the case regardless of merit. This was a good reponse and there are still more avenues to pursue. Stay the course. D#mn the torpedoes, full speed ahead...
Religion and science are both 90% crap..but that doesn't negate the other 10%.
This is what's known as 'Judicial Review'. Courts can overturn and invalidate laws if they overstretch the bounds Congress is held within (namely, the constitution, or previous laws that contradict the newer law). Lower courts don't do this, but the appeals courts and the Supreme Court DOES do this.
I think writing your Senator or Representative is a good step, but since this is already law, the most appropriate thing to do is watch the courts deal with it.
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
If you don't feal like spending any time on reading the answers, here is a summary:
Q: Is DeCSS speech?
A: EFF: yes!
MPAA: no!
And we should just subvert to them why? Other people voted for them, so they should tell us what to do? Everyone knows what's best for me? What about me?
I doubt 2600 will lose the case.
They have challenged the linking aspect. The law applied by the lower court was incorrect. If the higher court finds this to be the so there will be no case to answer. In fact the lower court will probably be advised of it's incorrect position.
The higher court is asking the defence lawyers to justify their clients actions. The fact they asked for justification means they are not closed to the idea that a lower court made a mistake.
Unlike a lot of posts I'm fairly happy about the tone and intelligence of the courts questions. They are seeking to establish under what precedent the prosecution has to show guilt.
Remember the court will judge cases not on good/bad, wrong/right it will usually follow precedent and the law.
2600 did break the law (DMCA). There are two ways to fix a law: 1. lobby congress (hard to do without money). 2. break the law and try to convince the courts to rule the law unconstitutional. 2600 is doing the latter.
This sig intentionally left blank.
From the brief:
DeCSS itself has no non-speech elements. It is a set of instructions written in a specific professional language that expresses ideas to those who can read that language. Computer programmers and scientists communicate using programming languages because these languages are an unambiguous mode of expression... That a person might use a computer program to do something does not by itself add "nonspeech" elements to the text.
That a person "might?" Where does "might" come from? I'm not sure where these EFF guys have been, but most programs actually get run much more frequently than they are used for interpersonal communication. I'm not saying that programs aren't used for communication - they are. It's just not their primary purpose.
Now, copyright law recognizes software as expressive content. Heck, even a COMPILED EXECUTABLE is recognized as expressive. They may have better luck pointing out that ambiguity than in trying to say that the main purpose of source code is to communicate with another human being.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
That 2600 is going to lose this. I feel that the stigma of being a "hacker" is not going to be overcome by this breif.
I feel that perhaps the court will stand in partial favor but still judge against them. The larger money will win this simply because they have demonised 2600 into hackers that steal credit cards and kill people via their keyboards from far away.
The funny thing is that I would trust 2600 with my credit card before I would trust the MPAA. Infact I did when I subscribed.
The Lottery:
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
A lockpick is a device. A program is not a device. A program is a set of instructions (by anyone's definition). Sets of instructions, whether they be printed or not, are protected speech.
As for your "you are stuck" analogy, not really. You could pay someone to take off the door and be forced to purchase a new one. Fortunately, thanks to lockpicks, one does not have to do that.
-
Why not just show that the files on a DVD can be copied to the hard drive without being decrypted???? That proves that CSS is not a means to prevent copying. Geez! Such a demonstration is proof that it doesn't prevent copying. It only prevents playback.
You know, that pesky "Right to Revolt" that Thomas Jefferson mentioned, or, gods forfend, civil disobedience, invented by that crazy guy from Walden. Or better yet, try reading some of the philosophy upon which our government was founded. The power of natural rights political philosophy is precisely that certain rights are natural unto man, and thereby reserved from government abridgement. I think the word here is inalienable.
The real irony is that the "Slashdot Fortune Cookie" at the bottom of the page was a quotation from H. D. Thoreau.
Either that or you are one hell of a troll...
Protege Posterioram Tuam
What's wrong with court-house halls -- why must it be halls of legislation? That's what 2600 is doing. Now, if they were causing property destruction, then you might be able to say it was the streets. Or if they pirated dvd's in secret, then you might say it was the alleyways. But they did none of that -- I think they chose the best option.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
> DCMA states that if you own DeCSS Facilitates that you're a criminal.
Not true. Owning one is quite legal. It's the selling/trading/distributing that's illegal.
So how do you get one? Answer: you build one from individual machine instructions. And where do you get the plans? Right - the source code is the plans. Oh - wait.
--
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
If the Fair Use doctrine says I can use content for my own purposes (e.g. school reports, viewing DVD content in places where only VCRs are available (the back seat of my mini-van to entertain my kids on a long drive), etc.), and the industry puts something in place which prohibits me from doing this, and further makes it illegal for me to circumvent this protection, even for Fair Use...doesn't that imply that the industry is now responsible for providing me a method around this protection?
I.E. they would have to provide the snippets I need for a school report, or a video tape copy for my road trip? Otherwise I can't exercise my right to Fair Use.
Perhaps we could begin making such requests to the content producers and innundate them. They, of course, would say no, and then THEY would be the "bad guy" when they were the defendent in our class-action suit to claim our Fair Use right.
Xesdeeni
DCMA states that if you own DeCSS Facilitates that you're a criminal. Sure I'll bite that DeCSS can be analogous to a crowbar. A crowbar is a tool just like DeCSS. So a man owns a crowbar(A tool). Sure he can break into a library and steal books. But maybe he just wants to pull some rusty nails out of his house, or maybe he wants to rescue someone buried under rubble. So a man owns DeCSS(A tool). Sure he can steal DVDs. But maybe he just wants to make a backup, or maybe he wants to design DVD drives. There are legitimate reasons a man should own DeCSS as most every college university would defend. The idea of imprisoning a man for owning a tool is not even borderline facism, its a direct application of it. "Sorry son, your dad is going to prison. He should have known better to be in the possession of a crowbar."
God spoke to me
Do terrorist groups have magazines? It's interesting how the MPAA uses language referring to 2600, and specifically Corley, as a terrorist group hell-bent upon illegal activities, and yet Corley's lawyers keep representing himself as a magazine. The MPAA refer to Corley's "abusive misconduct," "electronic civil disobedience," and his "purposeful and intentional linking scheme." But more than that, they go out of their way repeatedly to try and "prove" that 2600 is not (does not run) a magazine, which they don't even give the legitimacy of referring to by name. This is obviously because removing a magazine's ability to publish an article, however illegal that article would be, pushes a lot of first-amendment buttons and definitely requires the highest scrutany clause.
However, can one really redefine a magazine as a mere solidification of the authors ill will if one does not agree with the content, or that content is socially unacceptable? If Bin Laden published an informative piece on how to make TNT (which has many legal uses), would he be protected under the first Amendment? Is the Anarchist's Handbook protected?
Do we really want to venture into the realm where socially unacceptable knowledge is deemed through inference to be not knowledge?
Aside - It's interesting how the MPAA keeps referring to DeCSS as a way of opening a museum with a crowbar. If I bought the museum, can't I open it any way I want? Furthermore, aren't crowbars legal?
-Cgenman
The ______ Agenda
There's a higher law than the DMCA. It's called the First Amendment. 2600 may violate the DMCA by hyperlinking, but it doesn't matter because those sections of the DMCA are invalid, and there is no need to heed them.
2. Does DeCSS have both speech and non-speech elements?
No. DeCSS itself has no non-speech elements. It is a set of instructions written in a specific professional language that expresses ideas to those who can read that language. Computer programmers and scientists communicate using programming languages because these languages are an unambiguous mode of expression.
Translation: an algorithm is a form of speech.
But AFAIK, DeCSS (as many programs) has 2 parts: the algorithm and the parameters (the decoding key). Are the parameters a form of speech ? I wouldn't think so.
Just like for pay-tv descramblers (eg. Nagra based), you can distribute the program that does the decoding, but you are not supposed to distribute the specific keys for the channels you want to see (Premiere, Canal+) ?
Just my $0.02
Ok, I'm confused... so I use this program that decrypts my DVDs, and I can't copy the resulting data to a storage device? Where AM I supposed to copy it,
IANAL, but there seems to be some technical cluelessness somewhere here, and I don't think its with me.
The DMCA is Unconstitutional and itself illegal and UnAmerican. Posting the DeCSS code is an act of Civil Disobediance against this very bad law. Civil Disobedience is an American tradition dating back to the Boston Tea Party, I doubt you would argue the Founding Fathers were wrong nor do I suspect you think the Civil Rights movement of the 60's was wrong either. Some times we have to take the fight to the streets and alleys otherwise things don't change and this is one of those times.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
The MPAA argues that DeCSS is not speech in any way. They are saying that computer programs are "black boxes".
If that is the case, then how could you have copyright on software? Doesn't the fact that software is copyright-able indicate that it is a form of expression, like written/spoken words, recordings, music, graphic art, or even films.
How can the courts in one instance rule that software has the protection afforded to other forms of creative expression when it comes to copyright (intended to be limited in scope), but then rule that it does not have those protections when it comes to protecting speech (intended to be a broad, unassailable right)?
Short answer: MONEY
-----------------------
-----------------------
Stay in school, kids! Peace out, Dubya
It is indeed cute; however, it raises an excellent point.
One cannot make a charge that something is not a fair use if it is the reasonably possible use
That is, as technology marches ahead, the standards for fair use will also march ahead, albeit not as quickly in the court's views. In twenty years when AV is happily encoded in storage-gobbling hugely oversampled, uncompressed formats (who cares if the song takes 500GB, the density lets me pack that 500GB into something like a cubic millimeter) no one in thier right mind will care if you make a copy to some lossy compression (MP3) medium. It won't be any different than making a tape is today.
So, like many things, time will eventually solve the problem.
Nietzsche on Diku:
sn; at god ba g
:Backstab >KILLS< god.
2600 broke the law, but the law is invalid if it breaks a higher law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If the DMCA violates the constitution, then the court's job is to overturn that law. If that is the case, then 2600 did not break a law that they can be held liable for.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
No offense, but simply relying on the legislatures simply doesn't cut it sometimes. What 2600 did is called civil disobedience. To paraphrase Aquinas, an invalid law is no law at all. Placing your faith in the legislature that made the invalid law to begin with is like handing another gun to the guy who's robbing you at gunpoint.
D'oh -- the stuff that buys me beer! Ray -- the guy who sells me beer!