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.

Comments

We Have a Responsibility

[danmil]

As programmers, we are in the position to actually understand the issues raised by the DMCA and by this suit. We can see how the various industries involved have extended the rights of a copyright holder in such a way as to destroy fundamental free speech rights protected by the Constitution. This is not simply a matter of copyright. It is a matter of free speech. Society as a whole stands to lose, and they simply don't understand.

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

Very Important Segment

[Platinum Dragon]

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.

Non-speech ??

[jay42]

From the article:

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

It doesn't make sense...

[President of The US]

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
-----------------------