DeCSS Injunction Reversed In CA Case

kinesis writes: "For those of you following the California DeCSS case, a court of appeal just ruled in our favor, overturning the injunction imposed by a lower court. The court's opinion is available in DOC and PDF versions. It's a great read for those who want to really understand the case. The conclusion is nicely summarized with this quote: 'In the case of a prior restraint on pure speech, the hurdle is substantially higher [than for an ordinary preliminary injunction]: publication must threaten an interest more fundamental than the First Amendment itself. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never upheld a prior restraint, even faced with the competing interest of national security or the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.' " Or you can go straight to the PDF.

Comments

Damn

[wiredog]

I told Valenti that we needed to pay those judges more. Ah well, I wonder how much an Amendment costs?

Re:Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

PRICE LIST FOR JUDGES, CONGRESSCRITTERS, AND VARIOUS POLITICIANS

We accept cash, credit cards, and checks. Please, no CODs.

Lower court judges - $70000 to $80000 depending on moral stance of judge and previous history of payments.

Marilyn Hall Patel - $900000 for a Napster-like copyright dispute. $5500000 to defend against Napster-like copyright dispute

Judge Kaplan - $80000000 if member of MPAA. Subtract $5000000 if dealing with those skript kiddies at 2600.

APPEALS COURT

Our prices for appeals court judges vary widely, but generally can be pinned between 50 million and 60 million dollars due to the judges' high moral fiber, wealth, and influence. It is also more difficult to discreetly bribe an appeals court judge

AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION

We price constitutional amendments at a very competitive rate . Our $90 billion Constitutional Package covers bribes to congresscritters, all 50 state legislatures, and for a FREE bonus, a massive advertising campaign blitz that will convince Joe Q. Luser that your Intellectual Property amendment guarantees them lower prices and helps the economy.

Don't delay. Order today!

Re:Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take 2.

You do realize that this post, as anonymous, qualifies as a terrorist activity, and that Slashdot has to give up your ip address, and then your ISP will give up your details to the FBI.

Have a nice day.

Re:Damn

[trixillion]

Sadly, Lobbying is much much much cheaper than this. Getting bills introduced, strong-armed and passed by your party of choice will typically not run you more than a MM or two - double that if the bill is particularly onerous.

Re:Damn

[Nyarly]

Woah, realization: does it matter if officials can be bought, if their price is obviously more than they're worth?

Yeah, ha ha, but seriously, what if it some economic drive could push the price of our representives higher than is worth paying. Is it worth paying 90,000,000,000 USD for a congressional amendment that will pay that back in a thousand years? Or more simply, why buy a judge for more than the dispute is worth?

Is it possible though to push those costs up in a reliable way, assuming that the human desire for justice and fair play is not always as strong as the human desire for personal enrichment (an assumption I don't think anyone around here is going to question.) First there's simple supply and demand: a judge's ruling (which I standardize on as the simple case) is a one time service. Very limited supply. Only the Supreme Court has a monopoly on rulings, and they can take away anything another judge gives you, which complicates the model a bit. Also note that there is an oportunity cost: a judge can only sell a case once, and the appearance of being bought might affect their ability to sell further rulings.

But what we want is for judges to rule as if the ruling hadn't been sold. Perhaps judges would be willing to sell their privacy, so that we can be sure that none of their personal gain is dishonest, but they make a tidy profit on the side? Hrm.

Your Rights Online: DeCSS injunction Reversed In C

[VA Software]

Or you can go straight to the DOC.

Pinch me.

[Lemmy Caution]

It's been so long since the right thing has happened in an intellectual property-related case, that I don't believe it.

Re:Pinch me.

[ichimunki]

We probably haven't heard the last of this case yet. Poring over the ruling, I have to ask some questions that didn't seem to get raised.

Why isn't Johansen's status as a minor the key factor in his inability to agree to the Xing EULA? Who cares about Norwegian law on this matter, if Johansen lived in CA, he could not be held to such a contract because he is a minor. Can 15 year olds sign binding contracts in Norway?

Anyone else notice the slashdot.org plug right there in the ruling? That is some awesome free advertising. :)

By the way, we should note that this case does not appear to have had any impact on the DMCA, but on a CA trade secret law. So we are not out of the woods yet with the federal law.

Re:Pinch me.

[dachshund]

By the way, we should note that this case does not appear to have had any impact on the DMCA, but on a CA trade secret law.

Actually, the court's recognition of source code as expressive speech is a major step in the right direction, if it's upheld by higher courts.

The susequent balance of state (and presumably federal law) against constitutional interests could presumably put an axe in the DMCA's head-- if the code==speech assumption is upheld all the way to the Supreme Court. Don't count on that, of course.

Re:Pinch me.

[sealawyer]

"Why isn't Johansen's status as a minor the key factor in his inability to agree to the Xing EULA?
Who cares about Norwegian law on this matter, if Johansen lived in CA, he could not be held to such a contract because he is a minor. Can 15 year olds sign binding contracts in Norway?"

It wasn't dealt with because the issue of whether Johansen did anything wrong was too difficult to decide without more facts, and because the court was able to decide the matter of the preliminary injunction without dealing with Johansen at all. If this case gets to a trial, even after both the trial and appellate courts have pointed out the huge holes in the plaintiff's case, then perhaps the rest of the issues will get hashed out.

I think it's infinitely better that the court ruled on the constitutional issue rather than ducking that issue and resting the decision on Johansen being a minor.

Re:Pinch me.

[bwt]

Why isn't Johansen's status as a minor the key factor in his inability to agree to the Xing EULA?

It's all a matter of civil procedure. That is a factual matter that might come into play if this made it to the trial stage. This court proceeded based on the assumption that the DVDCCA would prevail at trial on showing its claim that the EULA was valid. So no court has reached the merits of that issue yet. What this court said was basically that the trade secret act could not bar distribution of speech unless that specific person was contractually obligated to do so (ie had voluntarily waived their First Amendment right by agreeing not to disclose it). They cited the recent Bartnicki v. Vopper case to justify this viewpoint.

In sum, it doesn't matter whether the EULA is valid -- a EULA can't stop 3rd parties from posting code. The court completely ignored Kaplan's opinion (!!!) , an act that speaks volumes through silence, and ruled that source code sitting on a web server is "pure speech".

This is very, very good.

Re:Pinch me.

[Odinson]

If the Supreme Court does not favor speech over Hollywood's interests, our journey to the dark side will be complete.

As physical items become (nearly) as close to free(gratis) as information can be now, I fear the effects of existing business being guarenteed a profit despite a change in technical ability and need. In that vain the, FCC owning all the airwaves and dolling them out to a few chosen ones under certain conditions is very much like feudalism. If this end justifies the means (legally destroying time shifting while defending corperate profit) We are setting up the legal tools to legally enforce true feudalism in meatspace.

The legal decisions of the next 10 years can make the next 60 heaven or hell. Near godlike control over the structures that make up all physical matter and physical scarcity needs to distributed among all that do not abuse it. Damn Hollywood for not having vision beyond quarterly reports, and damn us for not fighting them harder.

Respect for creativity and self reliance over profit is esential for invention, self respect and true inovation. Liberty or death.

Re:Pinch me.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't directly impact DMCA, but if you look at this paragraph:

Second, injunctions in copyright infringement cases have been upheld "on the ground that First Amendment concerns are protected by and coextensive with the [Copyright Act's] fair use doctrine." (Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc. v. Comline Business Data (2nd Cir. 1999) 166 F.3d 65, 74.) The "fair use" exception permits copying and use of a copyrighted work "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . . , scholarship, or research" under certain circumstances. (17 U.S.C., 107). It "offers a means of balancing the exclusive rights of a copyright holder with the public's interest in dissemination of information affecting areas of universal concern, such as art, science and industry. Put more graphically, the doctrine distinguishes between 'a true scholar and a chiseler who infringes a work for personal profit.' "(Wainwright Sec. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp. (1977) 558 F.2d 91, 94.)In contrast, the UTSA contains no exception for "fair use" or any other vehicle for safeguarding First Amendment concerns. The Act prohibits even speech that is scholarly, addresses legitimate concerns, and seeks no profit for the speaker, while the Copyright Act's fair-use doctrine would permit copyright infringement in those circumstances. Consequently, one of the primary justifications for issuing injunctions in these copyright infringement cases is not present in trade secret cases.

This kind of thing can poke holes into DMCA. Essentially, I read this as "Copyrights can lock down content vs. Freedom Of Speech because of the existence of Fair Use".

So, since DMCA, no doubt, has nothing close to a Fair Use clause, it is thereby "illegal" for scholarly commentary (for example) of a technology protected under DMCA. Therefore, DMCA can abridge the 1st Amendment.

IANAL, etc.

Re:Pinch me.

[maraist]

Respect for creativity and self reliance over profit is esential for invention, self respect and true inovation. Liberty or death.

While I agree with you, I feel the need to at least put in the plug for capitalism.. When you acquire an MBA, econ degree, marketing degree, or any general business degree you are a highly specialized human being. Your focus is to squeeze profit out of a market better than your competitor. If you can't, then you are replaced by the board. If the board can't dictate policy effectively, then the share-holders replace the board. If the share-holders don't choose an appropriate board, then profits linger, P/E ratios drop, and investment firms lower their rating. If the rating drops, the share-price is sure to drop. Thus the investment firms sell stock, and the individual share-owners are dramatically encouraged to replace the board. Furhter, if investment firms that don't react harshly to harsh financial environments won't be invested in by individuals. Assuming Investment firms are mostly collections of lay-people's "retirement" money (401Ks, pensions, individual stocks, etc), then the entire drive to perfect the art of squeezing every last penny is largely propelled by sweet ole mom and pop. Isn't it ironic?

The main advantage to this system is economic efficiency (which has little to do with money). We distribute scarce resources to that which desires it most (or at least is willing to trade the most of another scarce resource). There's very little waste in capitalistic societies. The main sad part is that since you can acquire tradable goods (fiat money) more easily when you already have tradable goods (equity), then the value of a fixed quantity of money to a wealthy person is orders of magnitude less than that of a poor person.. Thus when bidding for a scarce resource, the most needy usually can not compete. But I've never seen a system that avoids this problem without just trading it for other just-as-serious problems.

Given the above, the US constitution is not in the most efficient form (nor could it be without adapting over time). Usually it any modifications to law and or constitutional rights lag behind the currently desired equilibrium (which is usually a compromise which doesn't fully meet anyone's desires, as it should be). But the mechanisms for enforcing these changes are by far not in line with economic principles. Democracy is at least closer than communism to an market-sensative adaptable system. Like the board, we remove the administration when it falls out of favor. But unlike a company, there is no clear direction (as with profit), so it's impossible to gaguge someone's resume' and determine if they stand a chance at better administration.

The general point, however is that we can't blame the MPAA or RIAA for their direction. They are the product of evolution. Anything they'd be replaced with would come to similar decisions. We can only competed with them for legislative efficacy. But like the wealthy and poor competing for a scarse resource, the money favors the large organization in enacting new laws.

The only out I can consider is to define a set of measurements by which a congresman's value can be weighed. How much like "measuring the worth of poety" [dead poet society] this sounds, but this is, indeed in the name of reaching a political equilibrium.

-Michael

Re:Pinch me.

[dogbowl]

Um.. can we get some mod points for the above logical, well thought out, and well expressed comments?

Re:Pinch me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the court's recognition of source code as expressive speech is a major step in the right direction, if it's upheld by higher courts.

As was immediately pointed out in another forum, the court appears to have made a colossal blunder ...

If the source code were "compiled" to create object code, we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones would not convey ideas.

If compiled code does not convey ideas, then it is not constitutionally eligible for copyright protection.

Re:Pinch me.

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL: I think the contract could be "inforced" against his parents, who in theory are responsible for him. They could be held responsible for the contract, and it would cascade down to anything he did as they would be allowing him to use the software in an "improper" manner. Also if he couldn't form the "contract" he would be using the software illegitimately, since you can't use the software without agreeing to the contract, and he can't agree to the contract, any use of the software is unauthorized.

Re:Pinch me.

[madrouter]

if source code is free speech, and compiled code is not. Then distribution of the code is allowed, but compiling and using the code is not. Don't expect binaries for libcss just yet. What I'm getting from this is I still can't USE deCSS.

Re:Pinch me.

[MikeTheYak]

Anyone else notice the slashdot.org plug right there in the ruling? That is some awesome free advertising. :)

Um, so you think there will be people out there who care enough about this case to read this ruling in detail without knowing about Slashdot?

Re:Pinch me.

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyright law consists of:
*The copyright clause of the Constitution enabling (but not requiring) Congress to pass copyright laws within certain parameters.
*A body of statute, presently IIRC Title 17 of the US Code
*A body of judicial interpretation of the Constitution and statutory copyright
*A certain amount of -- now, I believe dormant -- very, very limited judicial common law copyright
*Treaties are not, IIRC, law per se. If they were, it would provide the President and 2/3 of the Senate with an end-run around the House, and be able to enter into a treaty with tax provisions, which would be wholly unconstitutional. Rather, I believe that treaties must be "enabled" by Congress passing law which fulfils treaty requirements.

The Fair Use doctrine is a judicially-created interpretation of the Constitution. A version of it was embodied into statute by Congress, as 17 USC 107, but in a pinch the judicially-created Fair Use would control, as it is an interpretation of the Constitution, and the Constitution necessarily trumps Congress.

The DMCA is not really a law that anyone goes and looks up, but is really a set of modifications to (largely, at least) 17 USC. People will consult the real thing, rather than try to poke through what you could think of as "diffs" because it is a lot easier unless you are really trying to track the development of the thing.

So the DMCA doesn't need a Fair Use clause, it is essentially a subset of a larger body of statute that has one, and at any rate, the Congress didn't recognize Fair Use for a century, and it existed ANYWAY.

At any rate, the basic idea you're seeing here is this: The First Amendment was not intended to void the Copyright clause, but rather to coexist harmoniously.

As copyright is a restriction of speech, it is nevertheless allowed, because the First Amendment was not intended to guarantee freedom of copyrighted speech to unauthorized people. But in certain instances, thanks to other language of the copyright clause in conjunction with the First Amendment, may at times override that. (e.g. copyright isn't completely applicable to parody or satire)

And of course Congres could just amend copyright law to say something like "Copyright law doesn't exist anymore" in which case it just wouldn't in the US. (though they'd retain the power to reimpose it)

IANAL either.

Re:Pinch me.

[Fastolfe]

The Xing license agreement wasn't the issue at bar, only the injunction on the grounds that it was trade secret information he was posting. The first amendment protects your right to speech regardless of your age.

You're right; none of this has anything to do with the DMCA. Remember that this is just an appeal to the preliminary injunction. Most of the true meat of the DeCSS case is irrelevant here. All that matters was whether or not the lower court was justified in granting the injunction based on the arguments made by the plaintiffs, and they weren't. We are most certainly not out of the woods, and anybody that starts posting DeCSS as a result of this can still end up facing legal trouble, but at this point a court can't order them to take it down. This can be a good thing, or a great way for people to shoot themselves in the foot.

Re:Pinch me.

[JimmytheGeek]

That's the theory. Actually, nepotism and cronyism rule most board rooms. People bring the same acuity of vision and judgement to hiring CEOs as they do purchasing new cars. "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap would otherwise have been parking cars instead of cooking the books and laying people off. Shareholders are captive sheep. Stock prices don't track performance very well and they don't track performance relative to competitors at all.

I think the tools are there, but they don't get used.

Re:Pinch me.

[Chump1422]

My dad, a judge, will. And lots of the lawyers at the firm I work at.

Re:Pinch me.

[stripes]

Poring over the ruling, I have to ask some questions that didn't seem to get raised

Why isn't Johansen's status as a minor the key factor in his inability to agree to the Xing EULA?

Easy enough. The court only needs to find one reason to overturn the ruling, not all of them. Why do all the work to determine that the click wrap was invalid (if it was) when one can skip it all and just declare that the 1st amendment trumps all? (well, almost all -- and all that matters here)

Besides it is more important in the long run that prior restraint on source code is just as hard to get as prior constraint on speech... since prior restraint on speech is almost impossible, requiring not just national security grounds, but pressing ones.

O.B. disclaimer, free legal advice is worth no more then you pay for it, sometimes even less. Plus I ain't even graduated from a University, let alone passed the bar.

Re:Pinch me.

[dachshund]

Not a terribly big deal. If this is the compromise that the courts arrive at, in order to guarantee a first amendment protection for code, it could be worse. And only the "controversial" portion of the code need be distributed as source.

It will certainly not benefit the closed-source community, which is bad. But it will help open-source projects.

Re:Pinch me.

[Anonymous Coward]

What I found interesting in the ruling is that the distinction made between speech that has a functional aspect (e.g. source code) and that that doe not

I wonder what the legal impact would be if the functional nature of source code as speech was 'removed'?

For exampl: /* DeCSS code goes here */

In this form, the code is not functional since it's fully enclosed in a comment block and as such is pure speech.

Re:Pinch me.

[Anonymous Coward]

> There's very little waste in capitalistic societies.

You're not from around here are you?

-dg

Re:Pinch me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree with much of the above...

The general point, however is that we can't blame the MPAA or RIAA for their direction. They are the product of evolution. Anything they'd be replaced with would come to similar decisions. We can only competed with them for legislative efficacy. But like the wealthy and poor competing for a scarse resource, the money favors the large organization in enacting new laws.

That's where the problem lies. The law is not supposed to be affected by who has the most money. If anything, all more money should get you is better lawyers, who might be able to bring in more technicalities and loopholes to win the case. The lawmakers are supposed to decide based on what's best for the country and what is 'fair', without the corrupting influence of campaign contributions and political donations.

The RIAA and MPAA et al will do what is best for their company (or member companies). It is the government's responsibility to enact law that decides what is overall best for everyone. And I don't think it's possible to trust them to do so when we know that their decisions will be subject to a) financial incentives from these groups, and b) confusion arising from misinformation, doublespeak and technical talk from these companies combined with the government's own ignorance of the technologies they are legislating, and the real implications of that resulting legislation.

I don't know what the solution to that would be, but a good first step would be:
- no more campaign contributions. Let's face it, only offering positions of power to the rich and well-sponsored does NOT mean you get anywhere near the best man (or indeed the smartest man) for the job. The idea, if not the implementation, of politics is to pick the best candidate, not the best PR campaign.
- re-examination of the original intentions of copyright and related laws, and the current usage (and the best way it can be applied now for positive effect). Should it just be extended every time Disney is about to lose their rights? Why not let them keep the rights to the characters they continue to actively use, whilst their earliest animation efforts expire their copyrights and pass into the public domain?

It's annoying to me that free speech had to be brought into this particular case, and that it was then the reason for a more detailed examination. Again it's somewhat abused with the idea that it protects telling trade secrets to everyone. It shouldn't need to, the issue is supposed to be whether it was a trade secret and whether he came across it legally (and with the expectation that it was legal), not whether Free Speech allows him to pass it on regardless. As far as I can see, the 'secret' was discovered in a (probably) legal way - and that SHOULD have been questioned by the court, it can't be that hard to get some basic idea of whether or not reverse engineering is specifically described as illegal in another country. Once discovered it can be passed on. Trade secrets are supposed to remain in a company, or with strictly contract-bound partners, and if they escape then sorry but bad luck unless you can prove it's an inside job.

Re:Pinch me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can 15 year olds sign binding contracts in Norway?

No. Neither can their parents be held responsible for whatever the children may think of doing. The harshest means of reaction against the parents I can think of would be to take custody away from them. That won't happen because of theft.

..Norwegian

Re:Pinch me.

[mpe]

Should it just be extended every time Disney is about to lose their rights? Why not let them keep the rights to the characters they continue to actively use, whilst their earliest animation efforts expire their copyrights and pass into the public domain?

They can do this already, simply by tradmarking their characters. (As other organisations, notably Paramount in respect of Star Trek have done.)

So....

[WD_40]

Now can I wear my T-shirt with DeCSS code on it without going to jail?

Re:So....

[sphealey]

Now can I wear my T-shirt with DeCSS code on it without going to jail?

Yes, as long as you understand that you can still be put in jail after the court case is over and RIAA et. al. have won. Just not before.

sPh

Re:So....

[Jburkholder]

>after the court case is over and RIAA et. al. have won

The recording industry is also joining this lawsuit now!!?? Those bastards!

You'd think they'd be satisfied with having run Napster into the ground, but nooooo! Now they have to jump on the DeCSS bandwagon as well, eh? ;-)

Re:So....

[bwt]

Well, unless you are *selling* it, distributing DeCSS wasn't ever a criminal issue anyway.

The real question is whether you can wear it without violating civil laws. Sadly, the answer still isn't clear. This court does say that you can wear it without misappropriating trade secrets, so at least you can wear it without violating state laws.

The other matter here is that this court's reasoning conflicts with Kaplan's. Eventually, the legal conflict will have to be resolved. The CA Supreme Court might reverse the appeals court or the 2nd Circuit might reverse Kaplan.

If neither of those things happen, the stage might be set to decide if code is pure speech at the Supreme Court level.

HEADLINES

[throx]

Ashcroft locks up Appeals Court.

In an unprecedented move, Attorney General John Ashcroft locked up all the Appeals Court judges while waving his arms in the air screaming something about terrorists. In a later statement he made the comment "How could anyone imagine anyone but a terrorist thinking free speech was somehow more important than national security?". Reporters who asked provocotive questions were also taken away for correctional training.

Re:HEADLINES

[scott1853]

I just gotta know, what does your tagline mean.

Re:HEADLINES

[blackmateria]

Dude, it depends on the processor mode.

V86 + real mode: B8 00 4C = mov ax, 4c00h; CD 21 = int 21h
protected mode: B8 00 4C CD 21 = mov eax, 21cd4c00h

Re:HEADLINES

[scott1853]

Jeez, it's been WAY too long since I've done anything in assembler. That's the DOS terminate command isn't it.

Re:HEADLINES

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, in 6502 assembly code:

B8 SEI
00 BRK
4C CD 21 JMP $21CD

Re:HEADLINES

[Derek]

Clear as mud. Thank you.

OK, I recognize those are assembler instructions. Is that as deep as it goes? Are these some sort of infamous intel intructions? Is it fearful to code in assembly these days? What gives? I just gotta know....

-Derek

Re:HEADLINES

[blackmateria]

Yeppers, it's the one and only DOS terminate command. Don't leave home without it (or you'll never get back!)

Re:HEADLINES

[scott1853]

I thought Int 20h did a terminate as well?

Re:HEADLINES

[Bobo the Space Chimp]

No, Wizards get disintigrate like at level 60 or something, and by that time their Int is 200, not 20.

Re:HEADLINES

[Jahf]

(off topic)

Let's find out ...

Question:
What does "B8 00 4C CD 21" mean?

Summary:
Google is a wonderful thing when combined with some deduction.

Details:
... Original String:
B8 00 4C CD 21

... Google Search of "B8 00 4C CD 21":

* http://www.co103.iup.edu/teaching/cosc300/cosc300w k4.htm
[snip]
e 10C "Hello world!$"
-d 100 118
10A9:0100 BA 0C 01 B4 09 CD 21 B8-00 4C CD 21 48 65 6C 6C ......!..L.!Hell
10A9:0110 6F 20 77 6F 72 6C 64 21-24 o world!$
[/snip]

-> Hmm, looks like machine code, could "48 65 6C 6C" be the "Hell" in "Hello world!"?

* http://physics.concordia.ca/~eddy/234/ascii.html

-> Yep ... that's machine code for "Hell". So the parts of the code in question that we can decipher from the table would would read (spaces between each value, [?] means undeciphered):

[?] NUL L [?] !

-> Looking for more program examples on Google gave this:

* http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~fgonzale/egn3210/FirstP rogram.PDF

-> Reading through the document shows that the program structure in the PDF executes the program and after the program is done has the data container for the text "Hello world!". So ... if this is a complete program it has to initialize, display the data (print), and then end the program. The string we're trying to decipher most likely terminates the program, possibly it prints the program and then terminates but machine language is pretty long, so probably just terminates it.

-> Looking one more time on Google was lucky ... giving us:

* http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/reference/heurist c.pdf

Conclusion ... that is the machine language for terminating a program. At the least it works on MS-DOS and can be compiled using the "debug" command.

Elapsed Time ... 20 minutes well spent ... learned something.

Re:HEADLINES

[czardonic]

Wouldn't you be frightened to realize that you a)cou1d recognize assembly code off the top of your head and b) you were the type of person to brag about that fact and c) you did so on slashdot, as if every second visitor couldn't figure it out for themselves, given the inclination?

Re:HEADLINES

[blackmateria]

You're right, I should have said, "Yeppers, it's the DOS terminate command, and it's unique just like all the other ones!" That doesn't have the same ring to it though.

Int 20h is just for compatibility with old programs though. From drdos.net:

If any file that has changed in length is not closed prior to an INT 20H, the directory entries for its length, date, and time will not be correctly recorded (see the Close File (10H) and Close a File Handle (3EH) calls in Chapter 4, DR-DOS System Calls). If you want your program to pass an error or completion code before terminating, use Terminate a Process (4CH).

YMMV. Who programs in DOS nowadays anyway? (Well obviously a few people, look at the size of this thread!)

Re:HEADLINES

[Tim Doran]

See? SEE? Geeks using CODE to communicate!

Thank god for free speech - use it at will, folks ;)

Re:HEADLINES

[scott1853]

That's interesting. Is there a Windows equivalent to open files being screwed up with one simple command? We use a DB engine that does stuff like that all the time.

Re:HEADLINES

[Anonymous Coward]

B8 00 4C CD 21 isn't assembler, you pompous dumbass, it's machine code. (Although most people that program in assembly can read machine code too, at least to some extent.) Also, every second visitor to Slashdot is some freaky troll that likes to post links to goatsex, but you're right, every third visitor could figure it out. The guy has had it in his sig for so long, I'm glad somebody finally explained it. Time to move on to new gems like CD 2E, or F0 0F C7 C8 (that one's pretty played out though), or 81 EC 04 01 00 00 80 3D 2C 30 40 00 00 53 55 56 57, etc. That last one is pretty fucking long though. Shouldn't be too much for every seventh visitor though. Can't wait to find out what it means!

Re:HEADLINES

[blackmateria]

Actually (heh. how OT can this thread get?!) on Win9x VFAT if the computer blue screens or hard locks while it has files open for writing, they'll be filled with crap (rounded up to the next cluster boundary) when you reboot. This caused us no end of problems with DB corruption until somebody figured it out and Used The Source(tm).

Re:HEADLINES

[Anonymous Coward]

Win9x corrupting data? What kind of troll crack are you smoking?! Next you'll be saying that Linux is stable, or has SMP support, or some other fucked up bullshit like that, or that *BSD isn't dying. Fucktard.

Re:HEADLINES

[A_Non_Moose]

Are these some sort of infamous intel intructions?

Yes there is the F00F bug...instead of P00F it's gone it's *F00F it's gone*.

In essence any command or set of commands that combine to give F00F as a result lock up any X86 processor. Unfortunately I forget if it was by design or eratta.

Re:HEADLINES

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, we can all tell that you're an NT guru from "cd 2e," and everyone knows what the second one means, but what the hell is that last monstrosity?

Re:HEADLINES

[BattyMan]

Oh, get outta here

mov ax,#$F00F ; Certainly won't lock up the CPU...

Nor would
mov ax,#$F000
add ax,#$000F

Re:HEADLINES

[throx]

Actually, int 2E is depreciated in XP. It uses SYSENTER now.

Re:HEADLINES

[throx]

It's x86 machine code for

mov ax,4c00
int 21

Or in the dim dark days of DOS (and before alliteration was illegal):

abort(0);

The fear part came in for me when I saw it, recognized it and suddenly understood how much of my life was wasted in front of hex dumps of obsolete programs for an obsolete system that was never good in the first place.

Re:HEADLINES

[Boronx]

Looks like its time to break out copy con and get the old alt key fired up.

Re:HEADLINES

[osu-neko]

...how much of my life was wasted in front of hex dumps of obsolete programs for an obsolete system that was never good in the first place.

It could be worse. Much much worse.

300:A9 07 4C ED FD

300G

If you just heard a particular frequency beep in your head, you know what I mean...

[Fighting desire to pull machine out of closet...]

Re:HEADLINES

[cobbe]

Whoa---there's a blast from the past.

LDA #$07
JSR $FDED
(Although I think you'd likely need a trailing invalid opcode or something to return control back to the system monitor.)

Cut my teeth on the Apple II series. I still remember that system fondly, even with all of its little quirks. (Remember how ``hi-res'' graphics were stored in memory? Backwards?)

(For those of you who want to try this out, get one of the free Apple emulators off the net, then type `call -151' at the BASIC prompt, then type in the hex numbers and command given upthread.)

Re:HEADLINES

[Anonymous Coward]

Only on /. does a discussion of consitutional law degenerate into a discussion of assembly language.

Re:HEADLINES

[throx]

Hmm... I cut my teeth on a VIC-20 and C-64 so while I can recognize the 6502 opcodes, I didn't recognize the subroutine.

Now if you'd asked what the number 64738 meant...

Re:HEADLINES

[A_Non_Moose]

oops, I was close...it was made into a generic term of "F00F"...or foof....

This makes more sense

I'm sorry...

[AKAJack]

I just could never worry about this a lot. It was so obvious that it was unconstitutional that it became just a matter of time before it went away.

No, I'm not a lawyer, yes, you can flame me about not caring enough.

I'm just a practical guy who saw the right people going balistic over this.

Let me know when the smoke finally clears.

Re:I'm sorry...

[jgerman]

That's not insightful, it's an absurd analogy. Up until now the DMCA has not been a problem anywhere near on the scale of the Holocaust.

It hasn't even really been tried in court. When it's being used to sentence 6 million criminals to death you can make that analogy, but until then you cheapen the tragedy of the Holocaust by doing it.

Re:I'm sorry...

[Shadowlion]

Does bringing up the Holocaust count as a Nazi reference?

If so, he lost the argument. :)

Re:I'm sorry...

[xonker]

You should worry about this -- yes, it's clearly unconstitutional, and with time and money it would obviously be overturned.

However -- look how long it has taken. Two years, I believe. The problem is that large companies and consortiums of companies can run roughshod over individuals with impunity. Sure, it'll be overturned if someone can scrape together enough money or get enough support to go to a group like the EFF, but it takes *years* to do so. In the meanwhile, their business practices continue unabated.

Will right prevail eventually? Kind of, maybe. But the point is that they shouldn't have the nerve to try to forbid people from playing their own DVDs with any software they choose. You buy the DVD, you should have the right to play it and enjoy it anywhere at any time. You're not infringing on their rights by doing so -- but they're infringing on yours by trying to limit what you can and can't do.

People *should* go ballistic when their rights are trampled on. Thank God this guy was willing to fight.

While you have certain rights on paper as a citizen of the United States, if no one stands up for those rights it's the same as not having them at all. Look at what Ashcroft and his cronies are trying to do... until the Terrorist Act makes its way to the Supreme court, it'll be used to abuse the rights of many people -- I guarantee it. People who are not a threat to the country or our safety, just people who are nuisances to large corporations and/or the present administration. I have no doubt that that law will be overturned eventually -- but probably five to six years from now, after doing amazing damage to people who don't deserve it. Someone will challenge it and prevail, others without the money to go through the process of appeals and whatnot will simply have to take their lumps or worse.

If that's not worth getting upset about, I don't know what is.

Re:I'm sorry...

[Anonymous Coward]

To the US the holocaust never was much of a problem. The US ignored it and only entered WW2 because of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
No country does anything simply because it's the right thing to do.
Our past middle east conflicts were because the US wanted to insure that the price of oil would remain reasonable.
The current conflict in Afghanistan is because a small religios sect happened to piss of a lot of important people.
The US ignored the holocaust and the average American
ignores the DMCA. Both are groups of people ignoring something
that can clearly be viewed as wrong. Just because the scale is different doesn't mean
that the analogy still doesn't hold.

Re:I'm sorry...

[MsGeek]

Yes. According to Godwin's Law, he lost. ;-)

This just rocks..

[cOdEgUru]

The fact that a medium of expression has a functional capacity should not preclude constitutional protection.... Computer source code, thought unintelligible to many is the preferred method of communication among
computer programmers. Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment"

This confirms my theory that there are more sensible people in the world than I previously expected. I just loved the part where they upheld the belief that "computer source code" being an expressive means for the exchange of information among geeks. I mean, that just rocks..

Re:This just rocks..

[Anonymous Coward]

so under this, publishing exploit and virus source code is no longer a terrorist act? i sure hope so!

segmond

Re:This just rocks..

[jazman_777]

This confirms my theory that there are more sensible people in the world than I previously expected.

Too bad there aren't enough of them. It's obvious you're a disciple of Dr. E. L. Karsten, keeping your expectations at rock bottom only leads to such pleasant surprises.

Isn't there some "sensibility test" we could give, to weed out the morons from voting?

Re:This just rocks..

[snarkh]

This confirms my theory that there are more sensible people in the world than I previously expected.

So the expectations were not in line with your theory, or the theory did not conform to the expectations?

However the evidence turned out to favour the theory but not the expectations.

Re:This just rocks..

[AB3A]

Of course the medium of expression has a functional capacity. A pr0n flick has a functional capacity too! So do sculpture, portraiture, a paperback novel, and a mathematics textbook. If it weren't functional in some form it wouldn't be worth doing.

That some people use these methods of expression to do ugly things is nothing new. (Recall the Uhh, "art" called Piss-Christ) The real question is whether the use of DeCSS to get around DVD copy protection is legal. And if it's not, what should we as a society do about it.

Re:This just rocks..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmmm, interesting question! How 'bout if we restrict the franchise only to those who have earned the Purple Heart or the Medal of Honor?

Re:This just rocks..

[shotfeel]

You mean like punch-card, butterfly ballots?

Re:This just rocks..

[Danse]

Not a great idea. Those require combat. Not something we want to be involved in if it can be avoided.

Re:This just rocks..

[ppanon]

This confirms my theory that there are more sensible people in the world than I previously expected. I just loved the part where they upheld the belief that "computer source code" being an expressive means for the exchange of information among geeks.

Well, if it isn't a medium of expression, then why is it afforded copyright protection? You can't have it both ways.

Wow

[scott1853]

So, what they're saying is basically is that the RIAA's profits don't rank as high as the 1st amendment. Anybody else been waiting a couple years to hear that.

Re:Wow

[AtaruMoroboshi]

can i get a HELL YEAH! :)

pointless post really, but "i agree"

Re:Wow

[BradleyUffner]

umm, no, RIAA is music, and Napster stuff. DeCSS is the MPAA.

Re:Wow

[scott1853]

Ha ha, please mod me down.

I got the major evil industry coalitions mixed up ;)

My bad.

Re:Wow

[Winged Cat]

You mean the MPAA's profits. And it seems to be a gamble: sometimes, the Constitution is supreme over industry profits; sometimes, it's the other way around. It should always be that the Constitution is the highest law of the land by definition, but logic is not infallably present.

Hey ...

[Wordsmith]

What do you get when you encrypt "Whoohoo!" with CSS?

Re:Hey ...

[Anonymous Coward]

hoohoow

Re:Hey ...

[Anonymous Coward]

oohoo-way

Re:Hey ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you get when you encrypt "Whoohoo!" with CSS? I don't know, but when you run it through DeCSS you get "Whoohoo". Glad to be of service.

Hip Hip Horay!

[linuxrunner]

Now we can all say goodbye to the pending DeCss cases and litigation. Now is it possible to counter sue for all the money spent defending ourselves against DeCSS or is that just a lost cause?

Linuxrunner

Re:Hip Hip Horay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we can all say goodbye to the pending DeCss cases and litigation. Now is it possible to counter sue for all the money spent defending ourselves against DeCSS or is that just a lost cause?

No, you cannot.

This reversed the preliminary injunction only. That means that DeCSS can be distributed in source code form. If you read the PDF carefully (hint, hint) the appeals court says that, indeed, the trial court might decide to assess financial penalties for the improper disclosure, if any is found to exist. The case is still headed to trial--just without the odious preliminary injunction.

The other posters who pointed out how bad a ruling the PI was are right; it was just a matter of time before someone with judicial authority understood the "if it can be put on a T-shirt, it's speech" argument.

There are still a lot of scary, possible outcomes relating to reverse-engineering, jurisdictions which govern license agreements, and other issues. We're NOT out of the woods on this one yet, folks.

Re:Hip Hip Horay!

[vsavatar]

Actually that is not the case, and by the way IANAL, but I am a first year law student. As the appellate court said they make no judgement as to whether or not there can be granted permanent injunctive relief nor on damages. They merely said the plantiff could not have a preliminary injunction. Besides, this case did not deal with the DMCA. It deals with the UTSA which is a totally separate and quite different law which had been around for longer than the DMCA. Publishing it is in fact a violation of the DMCA and the defendant could likely be enjoined under that law if the plantiff were to file for injunctive relief under that law unless the DMCA is held to be unconstitutional (which is still going through our courts and probably will be for another year or so). This does not make the other DeCSS cases go away because currently in MPAA vs. Emmanuel Goldstein relief is being sought under the DMCA.

Re:Hip Hip Horay!

[Prong]

Actually, unless the "code as speech" part of the decision is reversed, all of the other challenges to DeCSS are suddenly going to be climbing a lot steeper hill. And "improper disclosure" in a First Admendment context, reference the Pentagon Papers.

What interests me most is what happens if, by some tiny chance, code doesn't equal speech. Can you legitimately copyright or patent something that doesn't "promote the progress of science and useful arts"? Particularly since the SC has repeatly said art == speech.

Good thing too...

[wyldeling]

Well I feel, not to be redundant, that this was a very good decision. Having free speech win out over every other law in the land is a good thing. Besides, how can you outlaw a prime number?

text version

[Anomymous Coward]

for those who prefer text over .pdf or .doc, try here ....

Re:text version

[klanza]

Nice try. But I think you are the only person in the country who thinks 200-character lines are neat and easy to read. Sheesh.

Re:text version

[Anomymous Coward]

yea, that's a flaw of me copying it out of a window that was maximized at 1024x768, and then pasting it into an easy editor... simple mistake, but still readable.

Re:text version

[lunatik17]

looks perfectly fine to me

Re:text version

[balor]

If humans converse via text, is a .doc file text? When you write a .doc file are you writing text or binary code. It (again) begs the question of interpretation. To me .doc is a binary format, LaTeX in a text format. DVI is a block of code which imparts text to the reader. If code isn't a freespeech format then is text expressed by code(.doc, ASCII encoding, DVI) freespeach?

Its just something to get our hopes up

[rtkluttz]

Finally a small amount of sanity in this insane world. The DMCA and the legal clout that it gives big business may have another small crack now. But it seems everytime the ball gets rolling a little something stops it in its track. Just the idea of them trying to limit how I can watch a DVD or media that I legally obtained burns me up. I have just about had enough of the RIAA and MPAA and other big business shoving people around. I from this point on am not going to "buy" another cd or watch another movie that I don't get for free on the internet. But wait... don't jump to hasty conclusions about me or anyone else that is finally thinking this way. A common misconception in the world these days is that breaking the law is always wrong. WRONG. Many many times the morally correct thing to do is at odds with the "law". If the proper forum were available where appreciative listeners could pool money to send DIRECTLY to the artists that they enjoy listening to, I think many people would line up give their fair share. Its just that these strong arm tactics have me seeing red. NO ONE should be able to dictate how I listen to music or watch TV. Its a sad state of affairs when things have gotten so bad that I even feel animosity towards the cable company for upgrading my cable from analog to digital. Now I am forced to decide between one single show to watch or tape unless I pay more money for another decoder. It would not have been to this point had all of the other things not been going on in this industry. I will resist HDTV until the bitter end. What I watch is my own business... if I want to fast forward past commercials on a show I taped, so be it. I'm just plain tired of being pushed around by these people, and until there is a better way, I simply will not support it/them any longer, and I argue that this does not make me a bad person. It simply means that I am choosing the lesser of two evils. It would take a few big name artists to buck the system and back their listeners and drop out of contracts with RIAA and allow listeners to pay them directly but it has to start somewhere. The bands themselves are the logical starting point. Lawsuits will fly. People will lose money but in the long run we will all come out better than we were before if this were to happen.

Re:Its just something to get our hopes up

[mmacdona86]

If the proper forum were available where appreciative listeners could pool money to send DIRECTLY to the artists that they enjoy listening to, I think many people would line up give their fair share.

www.fairtunes.com exists for just this purpose. Go ahead and line up!

Re:Its just something to get our hopes up

[GPool]

If the proper forum were available where appreciative listeners could pool money to send DIRECTLY to the artists that they enjoy listening to, I think many people would line up give their fair share.

You also have to pay the people who fronted the money to pay for the production of the album. Hmm... that's often the record companies, isn't it? Yes, they do end up charging more than they really need to, and so do the record stores. HMV will sell a CD for $25CDN that I could pick up at an independent store for $18CDN.

The best method I saw for paying the artists directly was a band I listen to allowing people to pre-order their next CD (which they hadn't even started writing/recording) for double-price ($30 US), with only the promise of having it autographed. A year later, I've got my shiny new CD, plus a free t-shirt, and $5 off other band-related merch. Very nice. Still, not really any less than a record-company-produced album would cost. Hopefully the artists will see more money out of this, though.

Re:Its just something to get our hopes up

[Cinematique]

if i had mod points, i'd mod the parent up.

Re:Its just something to get our hopes up

[Anonymous Coward]

I from this point on am not going to "buy" another cd or watch another movie that I don't get for free on the internet.

Liar.

Re:Its just something to get our hopes up

[clare-ents]

"
You also have to pay the people who fronted the money to pay for the production of the album. Hmm... that's often the record companies, isn't it?
"

No it isn't. When you sign with a record company you receive an advance of $money which is borrowed against your future earnings. This is then spent on studio time / marketing etc. etc. etc. and you only see any money you have made after your record has recouped all the costs. The costs of producing album 2 are taken from the profit of the previous albums and should your album make a loss in any country this loss is removed from the profit from profitable companies.

Essentially the record company is a loan shark with fairly draconian provisions and the ability to keep spending your money on their services to ensure you never make any of it back until you reach the end of the $n album deal and are famous enough to negotiate a contact with decent terms, roylaties and liabilities.

If you're a teeny bopper band it's even worse - the best example is S Club 7 I think - the band members got paid around $50000 for three years work on tour and the manager and record company waltzed off with $50000000 between them.

before everyone celebrates too much

[shibut]

notice the quote:
"We express no opinion as to whether permanent injunctive relief may be obtained
after a full trial on the complaint, as that issue is not before us."

This only prevents the preliminary injunction, it does not prevent a full trial....

Re:before everyone celebrates too much

[ManDude]

It is still a good day, enjoy.

There has been a lot of crying about the degridation of speech through alternative forms, like code. Today we don't have to cry. Tomorrow? Ehh.

Re:before everyone celebrates too much

[swillden]

Also, it appears to me that the ruling is quite limited in its focus on speech. It only protects source code, and it only protects "speech", not "conduct". So where is the line that divides speech from conduct? Would distributing the source code of a complete DVD player that includes deCSS along with build scripts and instructions on how to build and use it to play DVDs be considered "speech"? Or would it cross the line from speech about the DVD CCA trade secrets into use of the DVD CCA trade secrets?

Does this ruling mean that the developers of Xine can go ahead and distribute a CSS-enabled DVD input plugin in their next source tarball? That's not at all clear to me...

Look out, Taco.

[Soko]

Finally, Bunner submitted his own declaration. He admitted that he had become aware of DeCSS by "reading and participating in discussions held on a news web site entitled 'slashdot.org.'"

This "slashdot.org" is full of people who have no regard whatsoever for traditional IP laws and rights and discuss ways to subvert them at every turn.

Good work, Rob.

Soko

Re:Look out, Taco.

[vinnythenose]

Ah-HAHAHAHAH!!! News web site, man, I'm not sure who's been fooled more. The one that called this site news, or the people that might now thing it is news.

Alright, it's sorta news, it's more of a gripe site though I think. You go there to complain about the world and why they us a living.

Re:Look out, Taco.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I'm going to get moded down for this but...

You're an idiot.

Re:Look out, Taco.

[Triple D]

If this is appealed... now that slashdot's been mentioned, do you think all the old posts will eventually be subpoenaed?
I'm picturing several unfortunate legal interns paging though hundreds and hundreds of really old slashdot posts trying to figure out what all the chatter about Gnomes and Gnus has to do with anything...

Re:Look out, Taco.

[gorgon]

Well, slashdot is already a defendant in this case, so presumably the pertinent slashdot article could already have been evidence.

Re:Look out, Taco.

[ncc74656]

I'm picturing several unfortunate legal interns paging though hundreds and hundreds of really old slashdot posts trying to figure out what all the chatter about Gnomes and Gnus has to do with anything...

The first goatse.cx or comp-u-geek troll they stumble across will send them running away...or maybe not. (Hey, these are Hollyweird types we're talking about.)

Re:Look out, Taco.

[ewhac]

This "slashdot.org" is full of people who have no regard whatsoever for traditional IP laws and rights and discuss ways to subvert them at every turn.

Dur-hey.

This is because those of us who actually understand these machines have realized their economic implications, and that they make copyrights obsolete.

Computers are designed to copy things. Indeed, computers as we understand them today would be useless if they lacked the ability to copy data and move it around. What the Feudal Intellectual Property Lords are trying to do is tell you, down to the smallest detail, what you can and can't make copies of, and what you can and can't do with those copies.

Consider the program Cthugha, which is an audio visualization program. It takes the digital representation of the music on CD and turns it into a light and color show. The IP Lords assert that, unless you have been granted explicit permission by them to do something with "their" music, you should be held criminally accountable. They have never granted explicit permission for you to run "their" music through a color organ. Hence, copyright violation.

Further, since the output of Cthugha is directly related to the musical input, the output could be construed as a derivative work (since there is no new "creative material", only a purely mechanical translation from audio space to visual space). Absent a license, derivative works are expressly prohibited by copyright law. Hence, using Cthugha is a copyright violation; and Cthugha could be held as a device whose sole purpose is to violate copyrights, and would be banned. (And after all, why should Cthugha's authors profit even reputationally from a color organ that would be useless without "their" music, when the major labels should be able to make money by selling you one?)

This is how adherents to current IP law think. This is not reasonable. This is not forward-thinking. This is not socially redeeming in any way. This is stupid. It is reductio ad absurdum, except that it is being taken seriously. On the contrary, it merits nothing but ridicule.

That's why you're seeing so little regard for, "traditional IP laws and rights." It's because they don't merit respect. The era of ubiquitous and zero-cost manufacturing, as heralded by the computer, makes them irrelevant and obsolete.

Please note extremely carefully: I am not saying artisans and inventors should not be justly compensated for their creative works. But the "traditional" laws we have in place for doing this no longer have any realistic bearing on the real world, since the machines themselves defy the fundamental assumptions made by the law. The whole system needs to be scrapped and re-designed anew.

Schwab

Re:Look out, Taco.

[SquierStrat]

No, we do not have a regard for traditional IP laws, we have no regard for improperly used traditioal IP law. If used properly, it protects open-source software. If used improperly, it attempts to jail open-source programmers.

Traditional IP law as I understand it would easily allow DeCSS (especially since a) Johannsen (sic?) was a minor and could not under California law agree to the EULA (and usually such liscenses have a statement about under what laws the EULA operates under.) and b) In the U.S. you can not sign away a legal right. Which reverse engineering is a legal right. It's like liability forms when you go white water rafting, they are useless, they're simply there to attempt to keep you from sueing should you get hurt. You actually still can. This is how a lawyer explained it to me anyhow. :-)

Cudos to Slashdot..

[cOdEgUru]

From the pdf..

Finally, Bunner submitted his own declaration. He admitted that he had become
aware of DeCSS by "reading and participating in discussions held on a news web site
entitled 'slashdot.org.'

Cudos to Slashdot for that..and to all of us who doesnt take it lying down.

And one more thing.. I am proud to be a colleague of Andrew bunner. Guy sure rocks when he is churning out code when he is not kicking snobbish DCCA lawyers in their arse.

Way to go Andrew..

Thank Goodness, I don't have to worry about ELPs

[Syllepsis]

Well, it is certainly a good thing that the Supreme Court holds that a language having a "functional aspect" is still protected speech.

Now I can rest easy that when good english language processors come about and all human language is source code we will still have a first amendment.

Besides, it was really taking my little brother a long time to decrypt some of my DVDs with the instructions I told him in English.

Duhhhh....

PDF?

[chas7926]

>>Or you can go straight to the PDF.

Aren't we supposed to be boycotting Adobe?

Re:PDF?

[splante]

>Aren't we supposed to be boycotting Adobe?

Only when a Microsoft Word file isn't the only alternative. Besides, there are non-Adobe .pdf tools here (PDFZone), here (PDFPlanet) , and here (SourceForge).

Re:PDF?

[alcmena]

Only on Monday and Saturdays. Tuesday and Thursdays we are boycotting all movies. All other days is choose-your-own-boycott day.

Re:PDF?

[Anonymous Coward]

text version ....

is that better?

Re:PDF?

[jbridge21]

I have quite a number of programs on my computer capable of reading PDF files. Only one is from Adobe (and I use it only as a last resort if none of the other programs can read the file correctly).

Re:PDF?

[technos]

Adobe doesn't make the only pdf viewer, y'know. Besides, we're a *nix-centered site. More of us (are supposed to) have pdf2*** or Acrobat installed then Microsoft Word.

Re:PDF?

[ethereal]

I could never handle those choose-your-own-boycott books; I'd always read through looking for the good boycott endings, and then backtrack for which story I had to read in order to see that company fail :)

Re:PDF?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny, when I mentioned that in an earlier story, I was modded down.

From -1 to .. ?

Re:PDF?

[SquierStrat]

One word: xpdf! :-)

Re:PDF?

[n-baxley]

Why is it whe're boycotting Adobe again? I honestly don't know.

My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[chrisd]

From Page 13:

[C]omputer source code, though unintelligible to many, is the preferred method of communication among computer programmers. Because computer source code is an espressive means for the exchagne of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it it protected by the first amendment. (junger v. Daley (6th Cir. 2000)))

This is too cool. As another posted said earlier, pinch me. I hope andrew bunner goes after the DVDCCA in an Anti-SLAPP (abuse of process) lawsuit if he comes out of this unscathed.

Chris DiBona

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[gorgon]

Yeah, but even better than the fact that they cite the Junger case is the fact that they seem to agree that code is speech. From page 14:

That the source code is capable of such compilation, however, does not destroy the expressive nature of the source code itself. Thus, we conclude the trial court's preliminary injunction barring Bunner from disclosing the DeCSS can fairly be characterized as a prohibition of "pure" speech.

So this court seems to be affording source code "strong" speech status, so that the expressive parts of code are more inmportant than the functional part. This court seems to be going further in protecting the speech rights of code than in the Junger case. This is great news. The Junger case seemed like a better test case since it involved academics studying encryption, but this Bunner case may end up being more important.

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[2Bits]

This is too cool. As another posted said earlier, pinch me. I hope andrew bunner goes after the DVDCCA in an Anti-SLAPP [sirius.com] (abuse of process) lawsuit if he comes out of this unscathed.


Yeah, but are you willing to put your money on the table, and support him throughout the trial?

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[Florian Weimer]

[C]omputer source code, though unintelligible to many, is the preferred method of communication among computer programmers. Because computer source code is an espressive means for the exchagne of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it it protected by the first amendment.

And proprietary software is censorship of the employed programmers? Oh dear.

Computer programs are intended primarly for human-machine communication, at least that's the way most programming languages are designed. Programmers communicate among each other using documentation (at least in theory). Of course, in almost all cases, there isn't much usable, up-to-date documentation, and this leads to poor software quality: the next programmer, due to lack of documentation, does not understand the design decisions of his predecessor, and thus can't walk in his footsteps.

And, regarding the second part, I very much doubt that an article describing a new idea about computer programming would pass the review process if it was written in, say, C. Hardly anybody expresses abstract ideas in concrete programming languages.

If we were all using literary programming tools such as CWEB, the observation would have some basis, but currently, such tools are used only infrequently. Perhaps we should change that, in order to gain a bit of constitutional protection. (Unfortunately, here in Germany, Free Speech is not protected, you only have the right to utter your opinion, and this right is severely limited by law in comparision to the US situation.)

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[SideshowBob]

And proprietary software is censorship of the employed programmers? Oh dear.

Of course not. Just as a columnist writing for a newspaper assigns copyrights to that newspaper, code written by a programmer is copyrighted by his employer.

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[arkanes]

Have you ever seen any really good, usefull documentation without source code examples? Code is the best way to express coding practices. Plain english examples just aren't good enough.

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[Fencepost]

Computer programs are intended primarly for human-machine communication, at least that's the way most programming languages are designed.

You must be an advanced Perl programmer - it's always looked like machine code to me.... Personally I prefer Python and coding styles that enhance readability.

True executable computer programs (compiled executables) may be intended primarily for communication with machines, but the primary goal of many programming languages and the source code written in them is human-human communication, with any inefficiencies dealt with by optimization during the translation (compile/link/assemble/etc.) process.

I haven't read the decision yet, but one concern may have been "What is a programming language?"

I'd contend that it's a way to tell a computer how to do something. If you set a precedent that computer languages are not protected speech, what happens when eventually software reaches the point where natural language becomes a viable way to control a computer? The difference between assembly, C, Perl, Python, 4GLs and Star Trek's "Computer: Do XYZ" is just a question of the sophistication of the filters, compilers or interpreters that the commands go through before actions are taken.

I don't envy the court that has to decide whether "Bob, handle my guests" is protected while "Bob, open the front door, greet them, lead Jim and Alice to the living room and ask whether they would like drinks," is not protected (assuming that my house computer is named "Bob") or is protected (assuming that my not-too-bright butler is named "Bob").

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[Florian Weimer]

If the copyright is not exercised, an author can regain it from the publisher, I think. (Mind that the source code, as a form of expression, is not published.)

In addition, the Berne Convention has provisions for the mutilation of works of art (and other moral rights). If programmers start to use this against their employers, we're going to face interesting times.

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[schon]

Computer programs are intended primarly for human-machine communication, at least that's the way most programming languages are designed.

This is true, up to a point.

Just because the primary function of a language is human->machine communication, doesn't mean that that's the only purpose for a language. Every language I know includes methods to allow human readability (some, like Python, require them!), and (with the possible exeption of Perl programmers) everyone I know uses them.

Programmers communicate among each other using documentation (at least in theory).

Documentation is only one of the tools that programmers use to communicate. It is far from the only tool.

I very much doubt that an article describing a new idea about computer programming would pass the review process if it was written in, say, C.

Then you've never read an article about computer programming. Without exception, every discussion or article of a new algorithm or programming concept I've read includes source code.

Try it. Pick a computer language you don't know, find a beginner's reference for it. I guarantee you'll find most of it includes source code.

Egads, I think I've been trolled!

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[Florian Weimer]

Basically, the Art of Computer Programming. I can't read MIX, so the source code listings have no meaning to me. I agree that if we are talking about actual programs, the source code is a prime source for information on a program (although I doubt that this a good thing), but the fundamental ideas behind a program are not expressed in a programming language, but usually in more-or-less plain English.

Or look at the typical documentation of a library interface (if there is any). Usually, the interface itself is described in terms of the programming language, but the semantics are described in English. Of course, the documentation might include source code examples, but usually, these show how to use the interface, and not what the library does. (If you want to read it in a programming language, you can check the library source code after all.)

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[dannyrap]

Does it matter at all if the source code is well documented and formatted, or some evil-looking obfuscated C code? That should sway whether it's speech or functional.

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[Florian Weimer]

You must be an advanced Perl programmer - it's always looked like machine code to me....

It's usually easier to figure out what a couple of lines of assembler input do than what a few lines of Perl code do.

Personally I prefer Python and coding styles that enhance readability.

I like Ada a lot, and it is one of the few languages which favor the reader over the writer. Most programmers therefore think Ada is much too verbose and refuse to use it. (There are, of course, numerous other myths surrounding Ada which scare away people.)

True executable computer programs (compiled executables) may be intended primarily for communication with machines, but the primary goal of many programming languages and the source code written in them is human-human communication, [...]

I whish this were true, but unfortunately, only few programmers share this view of programming. Most programmers, if not controlled tightly by coding guidelines, peer review etc., tend to write code which basically works, but which is quite hard to maintain, and not too few programmers have a show-off attitude, along the lines of "look how well I know C, I can even use multiplication with a logical expression to avoid an if statement".

Back to the topic, I can clearly see that some kind of computer programming merits freedom of expression. But this doesn't mean that computer program source code has to be protected as free speech: typewriters and paint aren't, either. In my opinion, it's rather the act of programming which merits protection.

By the way, with the invention of literate programming, the distinction between free speech (even literary and art) and programming is not clear at all today, no need to envision a Star-Trekesque future.

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[Florian Weimer]

Every language I know includes methods to allow human readability (some, like Python, require them!),

Shall I show you some of my Python code? ;-)

I very much doubt that an article describing a new idea about computer programming would pass the review process if it was written in, say, C.

Then you've never read an article about computer programming. Without exception, every discussion or article of a new algorithm or programming concept I've read includes source code.

Most of the books on my bookshelf which deal with computer programming issues do not contain much source code, only pseudo code to some extent.

But my point was that it's unusual that ground-breaking ideas or concepts are expressed using programming language constructs. In almost all cases, people nowadays use English to express the ideas behind the code, and not more source code. This is not surprising, most programming languages can't express simple statements like "This code does the same thing as code X, but it's faster in all cases (except a few degenerated ones which result in errors anyway)". You have to use natural language for this kind of stuff.

Try it. Pick a computer language you don't know, find a beginner's reference for it. I guarantee you'll find most of it includes source code.

That's not the point. A book on a programming language does not deal with generic concepts applicable to many languages, in many situations, at least not if it's a real beginner's book and not an introductory text to computer science (like SICP). Since computer programming is more than just writing syntactically correct source code, it's not

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[Danse]

Shouldn't matter. There are some pretty well obfuscated english texts too. They still get first amendment protection though, regardless of whether most people can figure out what the hell they're saying.

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[schon]

Shall I show you some of my Python code? ;-)

Sure - If you ignore the readability constructs (such as indenting) I'm sure it won't work.

In almost all cases, people nowadays use English to express the ideas behind the code, and not more source code.

You mean like the Fraunhofer Mpeg codec? Or (even in this case) DeCSS?

You miss my point. People do use English (or German, or Swiss), but they ALSO use source code. I'm not saying people don't use human-human languages instead of source, I'm saying that they use both.

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[Anonymous Coward]

"You must be an advanced Perl programmer - it's always looked like machine code to me....
It's usually easier to figure out what a couple of lines of assembler input do than what a few lines of Perl code do. "

Um, a few lines of assembler do practically nothing (although I invite you to memorize the 700+ instructions in the PIII instruction set. Quick, what's PCMPGTB?).

A few lines of Perl can do DeCSS. I could probably write a primitive assembler in a few lines of Perl.

You're comparing apples and apple trees.

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[beejhuff]

And, regarding the second part, I very much doubt that an article describing a new idea about computer programming would pass the review process if it was written in, say, C. Hardly anybody expresses abstract ideas in concrete programming languages.

You may be correct in the sense that if the article was written entirely in source code, it would perhaps be used by "hardly anybody." At the same time, I can never recall an article that described a new idea in computer programming that at least didn't reference source code. At least never one that I found particularly useful. And the best ones always include the code or link to it online IMHO

The bottom line that all programmers have to realize (and I think really do at their core) is that source code IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to any kind of complete and holistic understanding of an application. At some point we all reach a point in our investigation of a particular application (should we venture to delve deep enough) where some element of source code would help communicate the idea and intent of the application most effectively.

Which to me, at least, means that source code must be considered speech. Access to it is essential to communcicating the true intended nature and function of an application.

To me, it seems that my personal experiences in which I have not access to the source code has prevented me from resolving problems that I am fairly certain could be resolved is a testament to this fact. I mean, what programmer hasn't run into a bug or odd behavior in an application or API provided proprietarily where they didn't think...."If only I knew EXACTLY how the code was supposed to work (or did operate) I might be better able to resolve this problem...".....then we called support and waited for a fix ; )

A language, by definition, has to be human readable, since we create them. If that language can be also read and interpreted or used by another one of humanity's creations, that CAN NOT make it any less of a language, and thus isn't expressions in that language speech?

BJ Hoffpauir
Time Trend, Inc.
www.timetrend.com

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[greenrd]

Programmers communicate among each other using documentation (at least in theory).

This is a big mistake. The primary means of detailed communication within a project should be the code itself. Code should be as readable and clearly organised as possible. Just add comments where un-obvious things are going on. New techniques like aspect-oriented programming allow source code to be even more expressive.

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[Khalid]

>

This is not always true, some languages like ADA have what is called a "Denotational Semantic" it uses "The fixed point theorem" which can define the semantic of programming language as a "limit of convergent suites" (sorry literal translation from French :)). The trick is to consider the language constructs as recursive functions. It's exactly as if you define the factorial function like this.

f(0) = 1;
f(n) = n*f(n-1);

This is a recursive definition of the factorial function.

The Denotational Semantic definition of ADA is called Rational, by JD ICHBIAH. There is such definition for Pascal, and many other languages too.

The specification of ADA which was defined by the DoD asked for this because the semantic of computer is ambiguous when it's defined in plain human language, and depends of the implementation, which is not the case for ADA.

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[Florian Weimer]

You cannot express Ada semantics in Ada, you need a metalanguage for that. If someone has come up with such a metalanguage, fine for him, but it's not part of the Ada language (both the Ada 83 and Ada 95 don't have such a feature). In addition, I would be very surprised if the formal semantics cover the entire Ada language, since some parts of it are quite hard to formalize.

In standard Ada, there is no way to express that a subprogram has the same effect as another subprogram, at least in the general case.

Re:My Favorite citation from the Decision:

[Florian Weimer]

But very fundamental aspects of a computer program cannot be documented using today's programming languages! And comments are in plain English, usually, not in a programming language.

And if the project exceeds a certain size, it is essential to have proper interface documentation, and try to persuade programmers to look at the documentation before looking at the source code. The current implementation might have additional, undocumented characteristics, and if programmers write code which relies on these, it's suddenly extremely complicated to change the implementation, even if the interface was very well-designed for change in the first place.

Not everyone has got an army of volunteers to modify code affected by a simple implementation change, code affected only because people did not stick to the official interface, but peeked under the hood and discovered a new clever way to solve a problem, which is, however, dependent on the current implementation.

For projects with only limited ressources (commercial or free software without a huge developer base), interface documentation is required, and implementation details should only be examined for debugging (and there they are essential).

Cheap

[powerlord]

Don't worry, Amendments are cheap.

We have lots of Congressman and Senators paid for.

Maybe we can borrow a President from Microsoft for a while so we don't have to wait for our 2/3rds majority to be paid for.

Re:Cheap

[SnapShot]

I don't know. I'm more cynical than most, but when something good happens it seems like an opportunity to celebrate rather than bitch.

We can go back to bashing Fritz and the other representitives from Disney in another article.

Re:Cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

After the Congressmen and Senators, you're also going to need a LOT of State Legislators too...

Re:Cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep `em distracted, thats what i say.

a:I like the Walrus best, because he was a little sorry for the poor oysters.

t:He ate more than the Carpenter, though. You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn't count how many he took.

a:That was mean! Then I like the Carpenter best, if he didn't eat so many as the Walrus.

t:But he ate as many as he could get.

a:Well! They were both very unpleasant characters!

My bit of free speech for the day...

[RyanFenton]

while(1)
{
printf("Woohoo!\n");
}

Court with common sense?!

[jukal]

It was just amazing to read the PDF and to notice how straightforward and understandable the document was.

It almost seemed like it was written by a person with some technical knowledge. Give more cases for these folks to handle! :)

Walter Sobczek

[joshamania]

...for your information ma'am, THE SUPREME COURT HAS ROUNDLY REJECTED PRIOR RESTRAINT!

dude: Walter, this is not a First Amendment issue...

Re:Walter Sobczek

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha.....LMAO. Thank you, I love that movie (The Big Lebowski for the uninitiated).

//XY

Walter: Shut the fuck up Donnie.

Re:Walter Sobczek

[joshamania]

Fuck it Dude....let's go bowling...

Perl Code

[-stax]

#!/usr/bin/perl
# 472-byte qrpff, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz
# MPEG 2 PS VOB file -> descrambled output on stdout.
# usage: perl -I :::: qrpff
# where k1..k5 are the title key bytes in least to most-significant order

s''$/=\2048;while(){G=29;R=142;if((@a=unqT="C*", _) [20]&48){D=89;_=unqb24,qT,@
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV,qb2 5,_;H=73;O=$b[4]>8^(P=(E=255)&(Q>>12^Q&gt ;>4^Q/8^Q))>8^(E&(F=(S=O>>14&7^O)
^S*8^S>=8
)+=P+(~F&E))for@a[128..$#a]}print+qT,@a}';s/[D-H O- U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eval

Re:Perl Code

[Sloppy]

Ah... the APL of the '90s.

I just can't believe that a human being invented that language. I bet someday we'll hear that Larry Wall's grandfather was on the Pabodie expedition to the Antartic, and perl was lifted from the heiroglyphs found there, carved by alien-minded Old Ones from the stars. And that perl, like human life itself, was created as either a mistake or a joke.

Man, this is awesome.

[2nd Post!]

They view the UTSA as not being based on Constitutional principles, and therefore not clashing at all with 1st Amendment or the Constitution...

While the harm to the defendent is minor for not posting DeCSS and the harm to the plaintiff for having DeCSS posted is considerable, the cost of abridging the 1st Amendment rights of Bunner outweight the need of the DVDCCA(?) to keep DeCSS off the net.

That source code *is* speech, especially between computer programmers and is a language unto them the way Hebrew is or Russian is...

That if the 1st Amendment cannot be restricted over matters of national security, it can hardly be restricted in a matter of this level...

That copyright law does have an expiration date for it's protections, but that UTSA *does not*, or that the UTSA does not make allowances for fair use... Man, this is good!

Why America Doesn't Suck

[sparks]

"DVDCCA's statutory right to protect its economically valuable trade secret is not an interest that is "more fundamental" than the First Amendment right to freedom of speech"

You know, that old constitution thing you have is pretty cool. I wish we had one.

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[VA Software]

We have.
A brief outline of the British Constitution

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[sparks]

Well, how about one based on the sovreignty of the people and the rights of man rather than on the few pitiful concessions the monarch and her government care to bestow upon us?

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Yes, well, that's what you get for not having had a revolution. Most of the rest of us Europeans did you know...

In fact many of us had a few... ;-) It's never too late though. ;-)

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[ryanr]

Thanks for the sentiment. We've still got a few more things to fix though. I'm waiting for the day when all the Berne Convention countries have adopted our draconian IP laws, and then the Supreme Court overturns them in the US.

That would be kinda like the town bully organizing a gang, only to have his mom tell him he can't go out on the night they had planned to spray paint the school.

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[ethereal]

Now don't you wish you still had your guns? :)

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, that old constitution thing you have is pretty cool. I wish we had one.

You should all then stand up collectively and petition your current govt to hold a constitutional convention and make one for yourselves. Feel free to use ours as a role model, especially the first 10 Amendments, just make sure you leave out the 18th and 21st Amendments... those were an insult to the dignity of the rest of the document. Time to quit being "subjects" and start being "citizens".

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[Sj0]

Canada has one, but it's called the charter of rights and freedoms.

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

My nick is SJ, and I AM CANADIAN :)

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[RESPAWN]

Well then, you should come over here and join us. Yes, you too can become an American for only 4 easy payments of $1999.99. But wait, there's more. If you act now, we'll give you one payment free. Yes that's right, act now and you can become an American for just 3 payments of only $1999.99.

Please make all checks payable to the MPAA.

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the British did have a revolution (remember Oliver Cromwell), but the poor bastards actually wanted their monarchs back.

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Sparks, you have no idea how wonderful it makes an American such as myself feel when someone outside the U.S. says something like this. These days it is apparently very fashionable to hate America, even within America, but it's good to know that some people are able to realize that this country has much to offer anyone in the world, and that Americans have plenty of reasons to hold their heads high.

This is not to say we as a nation are faultless -- far from it. No system is ever perfect, and those who judge ours as imperfect should keep in mind that the system itself has the framework within to correct itself. If the system fails, it will not be because the system was unworkable or bad, it will be because it depended upon fallible, faulty human beings within the system. A wise man once said "I love my country, I fear my government". If you examine that statement, you'll find that it allows one to be critical of a nation and proud of it at the same time. Let's not forget that.

And, again, thanks for the kind words. It helps a lot these days.

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[Danse]

The problem arises when people wrap themselves in the comfort of believing that "we're still better off than those other poor bastards," instead of standing up to the government when it tries to take away our rights little by little. If people don't wake up and do something (it takes a lot more than the pitiful few that seem to give a damn right now) soon, they'll realize that it doesn't really matter who's better than those other poor bastards. We're all screwed now.

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster, vis a vis the alleged lack of a British Constitution:

We have.
A brief outline of the British Constitution [geocities.com]

Forgive the Americanism, but a non-written Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[Smugg]

Yep thats because hereditary rule is preferable to the tyranny of an elected head of state - I mean look at what the Yanks have elected since the second world war!

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Yes, well it goes without saying that just having democracy isn't enough, you actually have to use it...

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Well, we (in Sweden) still do you know. It's just that we keep them locked up 'till we need them.

When we do, we won't have to resort to those puny little revolers and pistols that you Yanks like to toot around either. When it comes to a real armed revolution anything smaller than an 80mm recoiles rifle just doesn't cut it. Accept no substitute. ;-)

P.S. And our last, was actually a bloodless one, in 1920, through an election no less. So it's still not to late. With or without guns.

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[mpe]

Of course, the British did have a revolution (remember Oliver Cromwell), but the poor bastards actually wanted their monarchs back.

One problem with tyranies is that even where they work well they can be awful at producing sucessor candidates (something which monarchies have loads of rules to handle.) Oliver Cromwell was succeded by his son Richard, who was actually the tyrant ousted in favour of a restored monarchy.

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[mpe]

Forgive the Americanism, but a non-written Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

A written contitution isn't that much good when the vast majority of the population don't know what it says and you have a legislature which routinely ignores it.

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[ethereal]

How civilized :) Although I imagine if the U.S. had a neighbor that was more like Russia than Canada, we'd have some better small arms stored about the place as well.

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[gorilla]

I've said this before, and Americans don't tend to belive me, but in practical terms, America is arguably the least free of any western nation. If you don't belive me, try and buy a Cuban cigar, join the political party of your choice, or drive down certain highways with dark skin and a large amount of cash.

Re:Why America Doesn't Suck

[gilroy]

Fair enough. But at least it's available for reference... if you assume people can be idiots but aren't (entirely) evil, you can always hope to rouse the population from its stupor by pointing out the inconsistencies between the written constitution and actual practice.

In the unwritten case, I think it's far too mutable. What's done becomes the constitution.

Music to my Ears...

[Ivan Raikov]

"...The fact that a medium of expression has a functional capacity should not preclude constitutional protection... [C]omputer source code, though unintelligible to many, is the preferred method of communication among computer programmers. Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas of computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment..."
Junger v. Daley (6th Cir. 2000) 209 F. 3d 481, 484-485

Boasting

[dachshund]

"Plaintiff's case is problematic at this [stage]. Clearly they have no direct evidence at this point that Mr. Jon Johansen did the reverse engineering, and that he did so after clicking on any license agreement." Nevertheless, the court concluded that "the circumstantial evidence, available mostly due to the various defendants' inclination to boast about their disrespect for the law, is quite compelling on botht he issue of Mr. Johansen's improper means and the Defendants' knowledge of impropriety."

So essentially, nobody ever boasted that they reverse-engineered the thing, or that they clicked on a license... But simply by saying "CSS sucks" and "the DMCA is a stupid law, I should be allowed to post whatever I want", you can find yourself the defendant in a trial for which the plaintiff has minimal evidence against you?

Those nasty kids. We didn't have any real evidence against them, but they were so disrespectful.

Re:Boasting

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Those nasty kids. We didn't have any real evidence against them, but they were so disrespectful.

MPAA Lawyer: We'd have gotten total control, too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

Rooby-Roo!

Re:Boasting

[ethereal]

It's the Microsoft offense - if you can make someone angry enough about your actions that they lose their cool and start talking about just how bad you are, then you can later use their statements against them to escape punishment.

Re:Boasting

[Anonymous Coward]

"Uh, nobody told me there would be boasting"
--Millhouse Van Houten

Re:Boasting

[peacefinder]

It's not that they lacked evidence that Mr. Bunner had posted DeCSS. The question was simply "Where does that posting stand legally?"

I think the real lesson in this quote:

Nevertheless, the court concluded that "[t]he circumstantial evidence, available mostly due to the various defendants' inclination to boast about their disrespect for the law, is quite compelling on both the issue of Mr. Johansen's improper means [and] th[e] Defendants' knowledge of impropriety."

... is something else entirely. Despite the apparent monolithic nature of the courts, when it comes to trial it's a human judge we face. That judge will be influenced, positively or negatively, by the behavior of the parties in the case. (As well as the larger rhetorical setting...) And let's be realistic; to a judge, the law is his life's work. For a judge, disrespect for the law is likely the next best thing to a personal insult.

Those of us who think a law is silly, stupid, and shortsighted will be vastly better off to focus our rhetoric around words like "freedom", "liberty", and even "interoperability" than around words like "silly", "stupid", and "shortsighted".

(You'll also see in the footnote [5] that they did not apply this broad brush to Mr. Bunner: "There was no evidence that Bunner himself had ever contributed any of these writings indicating disrespect for the law." )

I also note, with some amusement, that Mr. Bunner may have hurt his case by taking DeCSS down. IANAL, but this (from [6]) looks significant:

Since the record before us reflects that Bunner had already removed DeCSS from his web site and neither party argues that the trial court's injunction was a mandatory injunction, it is appropriate to view the trial court's order, at least as to Bunner, as simply a restraining injunction.

I got the impression that the appelate court would have been obligated to scrutinize a "mandatory injunction" more closely that they would a "restraining" one. Didn't matter here, because the First Amendment got involved, but still... interesting.

Re:Boasting

[dachshund]

I agree with what you say. But just to clarify:

It's not that they lacked evidence that Mr. Bunner had posted DeCSS. The question was simply "Where does that posting stand legally?"

It was clear that Bunner posted DeCSS. He admitted it. The question was whether that posting fell afoul of the California trade secret law; specifically, was it an illegally obtained work, or was it a derivative of an illegally obtained work?

DVDCCA seemed to completely lack evidence that Johansen violated the law in his reverse-engineering of CSS, the crux of the whole case. If Johansen didn't violate the law, then Bunner's copy of DeCSS was completely legal, and the plaintiff had no grounds. And lacking this evidence, the only thing the DVDCCA could present as justification for their case was the "circumstancial" evidence (although I wouldn't even call it that) that Johansen and friends weren't "respectful of the law."

I think that's lousy evidence on which to base something as drastic as an injunction. First amendment issues aside. But as you say, judges will be judges. Sometimes to their discredit.

Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[Hektor_Troy]

"Like the CSS decryption software, DeCSS is a writing composed of computer source code which describes an alternative method of decrypting CSS encrypted DVDs. Regardless of who authored the program, DeCSS is a written expression of the author's ideas and information about decryption of DVDs without CSS. If the source code were "compiled" to create object code, we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones would not convey ideas. (See generally Junger v. Daley, supra, 209 F.3d at pp. 482483.) That the source code is capable of such compilation, however, does not destroy the expressive nature of the source code itself. Thus, we conclude that the trial court's preliminary injunction barring Bunner from disclosing DeCSS can fairly be characterized as a prohibition of "pure" speech. "

Conclusion:

Code == Free Speech

Compiled Code != Free Speech

So what else is new? Other than this fact is now recognized by the court?

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your conclusion... but wonder about it. Will gcc soon become a circumvention device, because it can be used to convert speech (source code) into circumvention tools (binary code)?

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[jgerman]

So what else is new? Other than this fact is now recognized by the court?

Fact no, opinion yes. Source Code is free speech, and SO IS compiled code. It's just a translation to another language. I can translate english to spanish, is the spanish now not free speech. What if I can read object code. Translating free speech from one format to another DOES NOT negate the fact that it is free speech.

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[Winged Cat]

What about decompiled code? Is source code that has been generated from object code any less expressive?

Or is this just the court's way of saying it'd rather have source code than compiled binaries? As in, "if you can read the code and make sure it does what it claims, it's protected free speech; if you can not read the code, then it may be illegal". Add in the fairly obvious logical progression to making open source the only legally protected option when the thing that the code does is claimed as "illegal" by anybody who can sue, and from there to lawsuit-phobic businesses jumping on open source, and...

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[ethereal]

But you lose something when translating to binary code; if that wasn't a lossy transformation then reverse-engineering wouldn't be so difficult, would it? I think it's reasonable to say that binary code is less "speech" than source code, at least by the standard of "what do experts in the field use to communicate?". When was the last time someone posted object code to a mailing list and wanted help with it, versus posting source code?

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[archen]

Code == Free Speech
Compiled Code != Free Speech
Scripted Languages <=> ??

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[jgerman]

I disagree, number one it's not lossy at all, number two not being lossy isn't an attribute that characterizes free speech.

First number two. Translate from English to Spanish. Is that lossy, yes. Is the Spanish version still free speech? Of course. Try translating back, do you get the same thing, hell no, you lose even more during the re-translation. Lossy-ness is not a factor in determining if something is free speech.

Number one. When you translate from source to object code, you lose nothing. The exact meaning of your source code is translated directly to object code. Just because it is difficult to translate back to source doesn't make it not free speech, it's easier to determine exact meaning from object than it is the original english to splanih translation above since the meaning of the source is converted exactly to the object language.

When you encrypt something does it no longer become free speech? Of course not, even though it's in a different format, one not immediately readable by humans it still has the quality that it conveys the idea... only to people that have the key to decrypt it certainly, but it still conveys the idea. Object code on the other hand IS human readable, even if that's a rare skill, it still conveys the idea much more easily than encypted data.

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[Chris Mattern]

> I disagree, number one it's not lossy at all,

I disagree; compilation is *very* lossy. Unless
you compiled it for debugging, all the non-
external symbol names go away. And however you
compile it, all the comments go away period.

Simple proof. I give you a stripped compiled
binary. Query: can you exactly reproduce
the source code that compiled to this binary?
Answer: Of course you can't. Information has
been lost.

Chris Mattern

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[jgerman]

That doesn't mean it's lossy, it's only lossy if the meaning is different from the original. It is not. And as an added bonux you CAN reproduce the entire original exact meaning. Which is something you cannot do in natural language.

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[LMCBoy]

Careful. A big part of the recognition that source code is free speech is that it is not only functional, but also expressive. You seem to be saying that because the object code is functionally identical to the source code, it must therefore be protected speech also. However, one can think of object code as the information contained in the source code, stripped of all its expressive content, and reduced to a purely functional form. If this is the case, then one could argue that object code is no longer speech.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just some things to think about.

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[ethereal]

I partially agree: a certain amount of loss does not render speech to be not speech. However, as a couple turns with the babelfish will convince you, repeated translations will result in the loss of meaning. There is no reason to protect the freedom of speech that doesn't mean anything - as the Court points out, different kinds of speech are accorded different kinds of protection. So the amount of loss can be a factor in protecting the freedom of translated speech.

I don't feel that object code is equivalently as meaningful as source code. It's true that functionally it works the same (assuming your compiler and assembler work right), but the functionality of the code was never the issue. The object code is, by it's nature, concerned only with manipulating the guts of the processor and its interfaces. Viewing the object code that manipulates a DVD key is not nearly as expressive as viewing the C code which does the same thing, at least to most people, let alone more expressive as you imply. The object code is full of shifts, adds, multplies, etc. such that it is very easy to lose track of what is going on. The source code, by use of variable names and simpler syntax, makes it easier to specify the overall actions that you want rather than focusing on minutia. The source code focuses on the actual items that you would discuss with another programmer, like "DVD key data", etc - you've never described DeCSS to another person as "2108 left shifts, 1500 right shifts, 4328 adds, etc.", have you? The whole in this case is more than the sum of its object code parts.

This isn't just my opinion; it is the opinion of computer programmers the world over. If object code or assembly was so much more expressive at conveying our ideas, don't you think we'd still be writing everything in it? The fact that most programmers use a higher-level language (or a language that mimics one, like VB) shows that the average programmer finds object code to be less expressive of their algorithms, even though it may be functionally just as accurate.

The standard that the courts seem to be using is: how much are the ideas expressed by the code in relationship to the amount of functionality that is included. This ratio of idea/function is higher for source code; or rather for object code you're not really expressing the same ideas - you're talking about copying this or that bit of memory or doing this operation on registers, you're not talking about DVD keys any more.

Probably the best test possible: give the average programmer the source code to DeCSS, and give his peer the object code. The source code guy will have figured out the overall ideas expressed long before the object code guy. Even with the comments stripped out, I think this would be true.

...ethereal, who can't believe he would argue so long about this particular shade of grey :)

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[jgerman]

You seem to be saying that because the object code is functionally identical to the source code, it must therefore be protected speech al

Not exactly, I'm saying that since object is expressively the same as source it is free speech. My feeling is as follows: expression encapsulates idea, source code represents idea, compiled source represents exact same idea, therefore they express the same thing. It doesn't matter if I say "tomorrow", or "manana". The idea is the same, just different versions. If you take your argument to it's necessary conclusion all natural languages are functional only, their function is to convey ideas (just as source and object are in my view). A side effect of this is that the only thing expressive (in my understanding of your argument) is how you express those ideas, unfortunately it leads us to a situation where you are free to express ideas in any manner you wish, but that certain ideas are illegal (or immoral or whatever) to express. The crux of the problem is that the line between the expressiveness and the functional aspect of a piece of speech does not exist. They are each necessarily implied by the other.

I shouldn't be saying you're wrong either, it can go either way, just happens to be something I feel strongly about. It's all essentially arbitrary, just as the line between encryption and translation is.

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[shotfeel]

Just wanted to point out the fact that all of us are communicating via an unreadable by humans, binary code (generally ASCII).

Is my speech not protected because it is being conveyed in a language that only a computer can understand and translate? Is it protected only when displayed on a monitor or printed, but not as it is saved on the hard drive or transmitted over the internet?

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[Anonymous Coward]

If object code does not express ideas, then it does not constitutionally qualify for copyright protection.

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[LMCBoy]

Good points. I agree with you that the difference between "expressive" and "functional" is somewhere between unworkably vague and nonexistent. I wasn't being devil's advocate per se, but I was looking at it from the point of view of the court. The fact that what people can read and what computers can read are pretty much mutually exclusive makes it easy to draw a distinction between expression and function at the compiler.

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[Chris Mattern]

From whatis.com:

> Lossless and lossy compression are terms that
> describe whether or not, in the compression of
> a file, all original data can be recovered when
> the file is uncompressed

You can't recover all the original data; you can't
reconstruct the source file. It is lossy.

Chris Mattern

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[geekoid]

I would argue that Compiled code is also speech.
1. It has a name ex. Ihatedmcs.exe clearly voice speech.
2. I can look at, and read, compiled code with a hex editor.
3. If a take your favorit book, copy it into a language you can't understand, then dict tape it closed, is it no longer speech?

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[Alsee]

I agree with you that the difference between "expressive" and "functional" is somewhere between unworkably vague and nonexistent.

I say nonexistant is more accurate than vague :)

I've programmed directly in machine code. Does that mean I lose protection because of the language I chose to write in?

Any compiled language can be run under an interperter. The source code IS the object code. And an interperter can be designed to run code indistinguishable from english.

P.S.
The times I wrote machine code were 1) when I first explored machine language on my Commodore 64, and 2) I was optimizing a loop and my compiler didn't support assemly - but did support outputing literal values.

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[Mike Touloumtzis]

Compilation is very lossy when it comes to meaning and communication. The main point of a structured high-level language is to allow organization of programs in ways that make sense to humans (i.e. abstracted, layered, and modularized).

The CPU doesn't care about modules and layers, and in fact any good optimizing compiler will make these conceptual boundaries much more difficult to see (thanks to automatic inlining, peephole optimizations, and a million other things). A simple example: an optimizing compiler will rearrange and permute arithmetic operations in ways that obfuscate their intents, but make them more efficient to execute.

Certainly, object code conveys information and can be intelligible to (determined) humans. But it's hard to see the "communications medium" argument since almost any other form of the program--even just assembly language--is a preferable way to describe the program to another human.

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[maxpublic]

Add this: what if part of the function of the object code is to provide the source code on demand? That is, if one of the inherent aspects of your cd ripper is to offer up the source code for said ripper as well as rip cds, isn't the object code a primary medium of communication? If one of it's essential functions is to communicate what is now called a form of free speech, doesn't that make the object code (a rendering of this free speech) also a vehicle for free speech, in this case self-description through both source AND functionality?

Max

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[MindStalker]

Scripted languages are simply Source code that is compiled on the fly. Though it MAY be considered to be slighly more functional, but often are used in a more speach related aspects than other codes are. Scripting in webpages would be simular to typesetting instructins in normal publishing.

Re:Nice conclusion (part of conclusion copied)

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. The fact that the compiled code could be reverse-engineered into (admittedly expressive) source code proves it does express ideas; the ideas weren't added by the reverse engineering, after all. Compiled code is a language fewer can read, but it's just as much a language.

Re: This just rocks...

[slow_flight]

while (!TiredOfHearingIt)
System.out.println("This decision Rocks!");

System.out.println("Score one for the good guys!");

Slashdot got a mention

[baronben]

On Page 5 of the Doc. form, slashdot.org gets a callout
Finally, Bunner submitted his own declaration. He admitted that he had become aware of DeCSS by "reading and participating in discussions held on a news web site entitled 'slashdot.org.' "
Basicly it's Burnner saying that he had prior knowedlge of DeCSS thanks to us here. So, what is this, the 2en time that /. has been mentioned in court decsions (the first being the scientology thing?). Well, just thought I'd mention it.

MPAA.

[Anonymous Coward]

MPAA.

Will this effect

[phantumstranger]

the result of the judgement of the 2600 case at all?

Re:Will this effect

[NeuroManson]

In theory yes, since it sets a precedent... However, 2600 will have to go to court to make it official...

Re:Will this effect

[sealawyer]

No effect.

This ruling is in a state court (CA) and no other state court (NY) is obligated to follow that ruling in a different case. It's value is only that it can be used to persuade other states to follow suit.

Re:Will this effect

[zenyu]

Legally, only if either case goes to a higher court. I think in order to effect NY it has to go to the Supreme Court (maybe federal if 2600 goes to court). But judges do pay attention to precidents outside their jurisdiction so it may
sway them.

My guess is that DVDCSS won't pursue it to a higher court since that would make it apply to more jurisdictions, assuming it's upheld. Of course it is possible they actually believe they're on the right side of the law and this isn't just a SLAPP in their world view.

Re:Will this effect

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Wasn't 2600 a Federal case (DMCA violation)? In that case, if the [insert number here]th Circuit court of appeals rules that source isn't speech, and Judge Patel's ruling in Bernstein and the ruling in Junger stand, that would cause a conflict on a major Constitutional issue between circuits, and at that point the USSC would almost HAVE to get involved.

But as others have pointed out, this particular case is a CA state case, and may not have any effect outside CA.

Re:Will this effect

[Salsaman]

So what happens if Eric Corley co-locates a server in CA, and then publishes links to deCSS on that server ?

Good news, still keeping mirror up just in case

[Cyberstar]

Good to hear.

Still keeping my mirror up at http://cyberstar.nu/ just in case though (I even got a mail from the MPAA asking me to remove it ;) ...

- Cyberstar

I like this ruling...very logical

[Acoustic_Nowhere]

"If the source code were "compiled" to create object code, we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones would not convey ideas. (See generally Junger v. Daley, supra, 209 F.3d at pp. 482-483.) That the source code is capable of such compilation, however, does not destroy the expressive nature of the source code itself. Thus, we conclude that the trial court's preliminary injunction barring Bunner from disclosing DeCSS can fairly be characterized as a prohibition of "pure" speech."

Re:I like this ruling...very logical

[jgerman]

I said it in an earlier post but this is bullshit, there isn't any less idea content in compiled code than source code. If I compile a bit of text describing a landscape into a picture of that landscape, has it lost it's ability to convey ideas. Of course not. This decision is a step in the right direction, but it still has it's flaws.

Re:I like this ruling...very logical

[Acoustic_Nowhere]

The DVDCCA claimed that a certain key within the DeCSS program was a -Trade Secret-. The original injunction only took into account the potential harm of the defendant and plaintiff. It did not consider the implications that it would have on the 1st ammendment/free speach.

In this case, a compiled DeCSS object would have only a functional purpose -to decrypt DVD's. It is the source code of DeCSS which has an expressive purpose. This is what the judge ruled.

Re:I like this ruling...very logical

[jgerman]

But that's not true, the compiled code does have an expressive purpose. It's just in a different language, one that a computer can easily read as well as a human ( not everyone can read object code but it's not impossible).

In the chain of events that makes up a running program there is never a point that the code is purely functional, at every step it is an expression, it's a language explaining to the computer how to carry out the given task. Whether it's source code, object code or microcode. If the decryption device were entirely hardware based you could probaly make an argument that it only has a functional purpose, but software running on a general purpose computer... never.

Re:I like this ruling...very logical

[Maserati]

If the exectutable is not protected speech, then does a compiler become a "circumvention device" under the DMCA ?

That'd be bad.

Re:I like this ruling...very logical

[Bronster]

I said it in an earlier post but this is bullshit, there isn't any less idea content in compiled code than source code

There isn't any less expressive content in a nuclear weapon than in the instructions to make a nuclear weapon - after all, anyone with a screwdriver can read the contents of a nuclear weapon and see how it's made.

Sorry, but the _primary_ purpose of a nuclear weapon is to blow shit up. The instructions for making a nuclear weapon on the other hand are expressive material which shows how interactions of an unstable nucleus and neutrons can be used to produce positive feedback and a massive explosion. Sure you can use it to make weapons of mass destruction, but it's also speech.

A nuclear weapon is not speach (except in the "do you feel lucky today, punk - eat this" sense), but blueprints for a weapon are.

Oh, and "bullshit yourself", or something.

Hallelujah!

[meara]

"DVDCCA's statutory right to protect its economically valuable trade secret is not an interest that is "more fundamental" than the First Amendment right to freedom of speech or even on equal footing with the national security interests and other vital governmental interests that have previously been found insufficient to justify a prior restraint."

Now if only other courts would follow suit. (For those who haven't read the decision, "prior restraint" is a court injunction against a particular exercise of free speech before it has even happened -- e.g. forbidding a newspaper to print a list of tomorrow's bombing targets -- and has been found unconstitutional over and over again, even in moderately serious cases of national security)

Re:Hallelujah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Minor Correction:

One of the _FEW_ circumstances where Prior Restrant is allowable is when time-critical secrets are at stake; Such as Troop Ship movements, Bombing targets, or (generally) any case where _Time_ is important and _National Security_ is at stake.

Old News, such as which General screwed up the attack plan by oversleeping, or how the State Department gave away the victory, are not protected by "Prior Restrant" - Old News is Old News.

"In our favor"

[BierGuzzl]

Oh really, didn't realize slashdot went to court -- oh wait -- they made it into page 4 of the ruling!

Of interest is the explanation as to why source code is a valid means of communication and should be given first ammendment protection -- it's simply the most efficient means for programmers to communicate ideas about encryption. Even a much simpler concept, say a regular expression would take much longer to say in words than it would take to just write the damn regexp.

One thing that really annoyed me was DVDCSS's argument that there wasn't any evidence indicating that Bunner would suffer serious consequences if he'd have to stop his disclosure of DeCSS code vs what would happen if it were freely copied everywhere -- irreperable damage to DVDCSS. First, the damage has been done, although I suppose that there cuold be new dvd players coming out with that Xing master key without having paid licensing fees to DVDCSS. Second, and most importantly, being denied the right to free speech is some pretty darn serious stuff to have to live with. You can't put a dollar figure on that, and you shouldn't have to in order to justify the importance of your rights to some corporation.

I'm glad the judge ruled in "our favor".

Re:"In our favor"

[GooberToo]

Doesn't this mean that he could now sue for violation of his constitutional rights?

Re:"In our favor"

[Wesley Everest]

Second, and most importantly, being denied the right to free speech is some pretty darn serious stuff to have to live with. You can't put a dollar figure on that, and you shouldn't have to in order to justify the importance of your rights to some corporation.

Yes you can. If someone steals my car and it would take $10,000 to replace it, then you might say the car is worth $10,000. If someone takes away my free speech, then how much would I have to spend in bribes to get it back? How much do American judges cost these days? $500,000? $10 Million? $50 Million? ???

The nice part about this is that when you sue the DVD guys for damages, the judge will know how much of a bribe he would take to give you your free speech back.

Re:Hip Hip Horay! (not so fast)

[Blue Weirdo]

"Now we can all say goodbye to the pending DeCss cases and litigation. Now is it possible to counter sue for all
the money spent defending ourselves against DeCSS or is that just a lost cause? "

Actually this just removes the temporary injunction. It does not get rid of the trial and the court specifically refused to weigh in on wether the plaintiff could gain a permanent injuction as the result of that trial.

Simple Solutions

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy music and films from independent artists. Buy used CDs and DVDs. Contact the (independent) record label that your favorite artist is on and buy direct if possible.

A lot of underground techno is self-published, meaning that artists get almost all of the money (so buy underground stuff, especially vinyl). Finally, go see live shows, especially those that allow taping (I'm sure you can find a link on this somewhere) dbc

OT: Tagline meaning

[cdrudge]

the code sequence is x86 assembler for the following code sequence:
mov ax,4c00
int 21

or

in other words, it is a dos function to end a program and pass the back the return code of 0.

Re:OT: Tagline meaning

[scott1853]

Yes, it's way to scary to program in assembler now-a-days. The human brain can't store both Perl and Assembler code, so one of them has to go.

Re:OT: Tagline meaning

[CKW]

Yes, it's way to scary to program in assembler now-a-days. The human brain can't store both Perl and Assembler code, so one of them has to go.

Cool, a cure!

Re:OT: Tagline meaning

[uberdave]

Perl, Assembler, Sanity - Choose any two?

MOD THIS UP!!! FREE THE CODE!!

[-stax]

FREE THE CODE
11/01/01
01/11/01

Bravo, EFF!

[jcr]

That's got to be the best bang for the buck that I've ever seen from contributing to an advocacy group.

-jcr

Re:Bravo, EFF!

[renehollan]

HELL, YEAH!

And here I thought the money I was sending to the EFF wasn't going to do any real good.

Granted, this is a very small victory, but I for one, won't look this [gift] horse in the mouth. It also restores my faith in the belief that justice can be had and doesn't have to be bought.

But, it is sad that defensive litigation against these kind of suits does have to be bought. What if there was no one to represent the defendent? What if the DVDCCA could out-legal-fee him to guilt? If that isn't an attack on the "American way", I don't know what is. For this kind of malicious persecution, the DVDCCA should be considered an anti-American terrorist group.

O.K. Rant off.

Re:Hip Hip Horay! (and "Facts")

[glitch!]

Now we can all say goodbye to the pending DeCss cases and litigation.

Well, that's a nice thought... Here is one part that intrigued me (under "Facts"):

CSS is primarily composed of algorithms and 400 "master keys." Every CSS encrypted DVD contains all 400 master keys, one of which is
the trade secret at issue in this case.

I thought that the 400 keys were used to encrypt the movie decryption key, and that the player in question would use its "master key" to decrypt the session key from those 400 on the disk.

In other words, I believe that the "Facts" are wrong. The master keys are NOT on the DVD, just the session key(s) encrypted by the master keys.

If a court ruling starts out with incorrect "Facts", how strong and binding can it be?

Woohoo!

[Jucius Maximus]

This means that I don't need to carry the DeCSS source code around anymore on my mp3 player. [Now I get some storage space back.] I always kept a copy there just in case ;-)

Has anyone else been keeping backup copies of the code in odd places? ... I'm still trying to figure out if storing DeCSS on an mp3 player is ironic or just plain odd.

Re:Woohoo!

[Reliant-1864]

Get a DVD Writer and store DeCSS on a DVD. Now there's irony

Finally!

[farrellj]

One for the Good Guys!

Thanx to all you involved with this directly!

ttyl
Farrell

yes -- sorta

[BierGuzzl]

The last line of the ruling:

The order granting a preliminary injunction is reversed. Defendant Andrew Bunner shall recover his appellate costs.

Of course, that only covers his appellate costs, but it's at least something.

This is the best possible circuit for it...

[JWhitlock]

Sixth Circuit (West Coast, + maybe Hawaii) is known as the most liberal of the appeals courts. This means that the ruling is truly the best case for the free speech arguement, but doesn't neccesarily mean that it would survive a Supreme Court review.

I assume that the ruling, if the Supreme Court doesn't hear it, will stand, but that another circuit court may interpret differently, in which case it will eventually go to the Supreme Court. Looks like it's time to donate to the EFF, so that they will have the funds to argue the case at the next level.

Re:This is the best possible circuit for it...

[sulli]

The court in this case is a California state court. You are thinking of the Ninth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals, which has handled the 2600 case, IIRC.

Re:This is the best possible circuit for it...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd think the Supreme Court would at least be intelligent enough to realize that this is a 14th Ammendment issue, not a 1st Ammendment issue.

Re:This is the best possible circuit for it...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Close. The Ninth Circuit handled the Napster case. The 2600 case was in New York, and I'm not sure which circuit that is.

Interestingly, the Ninth also handled the Bernstein crypto case, and ruled that source code is speech. Did the judge cite that ruling -- don't recall from the link.

Further interesting fact: the judge who ruled in the Bernstein case the code was speech is the same judge who nailed Napster to the wall (Marilyn C. Patel).

Re:This is the best possible circuit for it...

[Artagel]

Um, er, no. That's the Ninth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit covers Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio. The U.S. Courts website provides a map. It is indeed liberal. It used to get reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court a lot.

However, the Ninth circuit is also the home turf of the movie industry. I suspect a number of judges know which side their bread is buttered on. The same is probably true of the Sixth Judicial District of the California state court system.

Re:This is the best possible circuit for it...

[JWhitlock]

Um, er, no. That's the Ninth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit covers Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio. The U.S. Courts website provides a map [uscourts.gov]. It is indeed liberal. It used to get reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court a lot.

However, the Ninth circuit is also the home turf of the movie industry. I suspect a number of judges know which side their bread is buttered on. The same is probably true of the Sixth Judicial District of the California state court system.

Thanks for the correction and clarification, as well as pointing out the resource - I hope a moderator is watching, so that folks will get the correct facts.

Cherry on top

[imrdkl]

Defendant Andrew Bunner shall recover his appellate costs

Did anyone ever really doubt the 6th district? I mean, aren't those honors from Berkeley, mostly? Seriously, all this chatter and breathing of sighs of relief is a little embarassing. Expect the best from your justice system. And dont be so surprized when you get it. This is still America.

Re:Cherry on top

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely. That is still McAmerica. That's why people are surprised when the decision is right.

Re:Cherry on top

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I did doubt the 6th App. District. Did you see their opinion in the Pavlovich jurisdictional matter? Same case. Hard to believe. The court has learned a lot in the past few months!!

Check it out. . .
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/H02 19 61.DOC

Other interesting citations

[Cerilus]

From Page 13:

"The "fair use" exception permits copying and use
of a copyrighted work "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching . . . , scholarship, or research" under certain circumstances. (17 U.S.C., 107.)
It "offers a means of balancing the exclusive rights of a copyright holder with the
public's interest in dissemination of information affecting areas of universal concern,
such as art, science and industry. Put more graphically, the doctrine distinguishes
between 'a true scholar and a chiseler who infringes a work for personal profit.' "
(Wainwright Sec. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp. (1977) 558 F.2d 91, 94.)
. . . the statutory prohibition on disclosures of trade secrets is of infinite
duration rather than "for limited Times." While the limited period of copyright protection
authorized by the United States Constitution ensures that copyrighted material will
eventually pass into the public domain, thereby serving the public interest by increasing
its availability to the general public, the UTSA bars disclosure of a trade secret for a
potentially infinite period of time, thereby ensuring that the trade secret will never be
disclosed to the general public."

I would think that you can use this citation to argue that copyrights, while supposed to be limited in scope, are now becoming de facto limitless, and thus are not 'for limited times'.

Re:Other interesting citations

[rfsayre]

I would think that you can use this citation to argue that copyrights, while supposed to be limited in scope, are now becoming de facto limitless, and thus are not 'for limited times'.

This is a gross misread of that passage, and your omissions cause the distinction between the concepts of "copyright" and "trade secrets" to blur. The court later states

"Both the First Amendment and the Copyright Act are rooted in the United States Constitution, but the UTSA lacks any constitutional basis."

keeping in mind that the court has outlined its reasons for designating DeCSS as "pure speech", check this out. it gets better...

"In the case of a prior restraint on pure speech, the hurdle is substantially higher [than for an ordinary preliminary injunction]: publication must threaten an interest more fundamental than the First Amendment itself. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never upheld a prior restraint, even faced with the competing interest of national security or the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial."

and finally

"DVDCCA's statutory right to protect its economically valuable trade secret is not an interest that is "more fundamental" than the First Amendment right to freedom of speech or even on equal footing with the national security interests and other vital governmental interests that have previously been found insufficient to justify a prior restraint. Our respect for the Legislature and its enactment of the UTSA cannot displace our duty to safeguard the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, we are compelled to reverse the preliminary injunction."

In actuality, the court was very clear on the difference between copyright and trade secrets, especially when it comes to an injunction that suppresses First Amendment rights. Basically, DVDCCA's statutory right to keep trade secrets cannot supercede Bunson's Constitutional right to free speech, at least not before the case has been decided.

6809 FLEX

[renehollan]

$7E $CD03

JMP WARMS ; jump to warmstart entry point

Re:6809 FLEX

[renehollan]

... "You had an assembler? Man! In my day, we entered code in by hand, and not with those wimpy hex keypads, WE set switches in binary and toggled the deposit or deposit next switch."

Re:6809 FLEX

[Anonymous Coward]

Pffft... I had a choice of soldering wires or flipping rows of dip switches semi-permanently to record my programs.

Re:6809 FLEX

[renehollan]

Fool... I was smart enough to solder decent switches in... once... :-) and then build an interface to a cassette recorder to save programs.

Those certainly were interesting times.

Re:6809 FLEX

[charon_on_acheron]

Been there, done that.
Only it was on the ComTran-10 computational device. It was either a large very weak computer, or a gigantic calculator, we never could decide. It was about 4 feet wide and 3 feet high. There was no monitor. The display consisted of a panel 2 feet high, with 10 rows of lights to represent the 10 data registers, and a group of lights for the data flags. If a light is on, there is a '1' bit set, it the light is off, it's a '0' bit.

No keyboard either, but there was a data entry panel in front, with both a Hex pad and 10 rows of buttons, one for each register. Press a button to set a '1' bit at that place in that register.

To program it, we had to set the '1' bits in the 8-bit input register, set the '1' bits in the address register (starting at 00000010, each address held 4 bits) and press the button to send the data from the input register to the memory space indicated in the address register.

Thankfully, this was only a training computer. It was designed to teach us how programs actually performed, at the binary and register level. And actually, I wish I could get one, just to play with, and show my daughter what I had to go thru.

Re:6809 FLEX

[AndroidCat]

Rene, you know that the SWTPc didn't have any switches. I don't think that love of your life, the Alpha Micro had them either.

Ron.

Re:6809 FLEX

[renehollan]

no, but the Altair did.

Re:6809 FLEX

[Anonymous Coward]

Buncha pansies. We had to set the square rocks just so on the side of the hill so the round rocks passed through the right gaps. It ran a lot faster when the ground was muddy after the rains.

Yes, *but*

[jonabbey]

If you read the decision, you'll see that the judges are not establishing that the First Amendment always or typically trumps Copyright, just that the First Amendment trumps prior restraint in the form of preliminary injunctions in a trade secret case of this kind. The appeals court could still conceivaly come back and approve a final judgement against the distribution of DeCSS, and the court will surely uphold actions against individuals distributing copyrighted DVD materials through benefit of DeCSS.

Which puts matters back into the interesting realm of practical enforcement of copyright on an open Internet.

Re:Yes, *but*

[Amazing Quantum Man]

you'll see that the judges are not establishing that the First Amendment always or typically trumps Copyright,

Agreed. They explicitly state that there are Constitutional issues with Copyright. However, this is a "Trade Secret" suit, brought under UTSA, and the court held that the First Amendment trumps trade secrets, since there is no constitutional basis for trade secrets (unlike Copyright).

Re:Yes, *but*

[dachshund]

Yes, but...

If the "source code==expressive speech" argument is upheld by higher courts, the DMCA anti-circumvention clauses get a whole lot weaker. While there are protections for copyright in the constitution, there's no language that backs up something like the DMCA; that is, preventing the publication of uncopyrighted "speech" because it might be used to circumvent something else.

Essentially, if code is expressive speech, then the DMCA cannot stand against a 1st amendment claim.

The problem with cases like this, is that for all the judicial expertise involved, the decision always comes down to some silly issue that could go either way. It's generally an issue that the judges aren't terribly informed about-- what the heck do they know about Source Code?-- and therefore are free to vote any way they like to acheive a desired outcome. If the Supreme Court (assuming they eventually have to hear a DMCA case) decides that code isn't speech, then that's that. Too bad.

Re:Yes, *but*

[Cryptosporidium]

More specifically, prior restraint on "pure speech" is looked upon very poorly, except in cases of grave national concern. The court's statement says:

DVDCCA's statutory right to protect its economically valuable trade secret is not an interest that is "more fundamental" than the First Amendment right to freedom of speech or even on equal footing with the national security interests and other vital governmental interests that have previously been found insufficient to justify a prior restraint. Our respect for the Legislature and its enactment of the UTSA cannot displace our duty to safeguard the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, we are compelled to reverse the preliminary injunction.

If read a certain way, it almost sounds like the court is being sarcastic. "No, you silly DVDCCA, your trade secret isn't more important than Mr. Bunner's right to free speech. So don't try to slap a prior restraint on him!"

Re:Yes, *but*

[Refrag]

An appeals court decision on a preliminary judgement, also takes into account their belief of whether or not the trial will stick. If the case is without much merit, there is obviously no reason to uphold an injunction.

I'm not saying that is why, just pointing out that it is a factor.

Set top players without a CSS license?

[ivan256]

Does anyone outh there know of any set top DVD players out there that use DeCSS instead of licensing CSS from the DVDCCA? I'm thinking of buying my mother a DVD player for Christmas and I'd perfer not to give the DVDCCA any more money then is nescissary.

Re:Set top players without a CSS license?

[Anonymous Coward]

idiot

bleh bleh bleh

Re:Set top players without a CSS license?

[bartle]

I'll put in a real answer, if only to get the bad taste of troll out of your mouth.

Does anyone outh there know of any set top DVD players out there that use DeCSS instead of licensing CSS from the DVDCCA?

Nope, all domestic players use bought keys from the DVDCCA. You may be able to buy one of those hackable players from overseas, but I wouldn't recommend it for your mother. The manufacturers aren't just buying decryption keys from the DVDCCA, they're also buying a guarantee that DVDs will work with their players. You don't want to give your mother a DVD player that might stop working next time some company comes up with a new funky protection system.

Anyway, I don't consider it that much of a contradiction to be for open CSS software and also buy a commercial player. I buy movies, I own a nice player, but I also donate to the EFF so they can fight the DMCA. Disliking some business practices should not automatically force you to cut off modern conveniences and live in a cave.

Re:Set top players without a CSS license?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, that seems like a specious arguement....

Anyway, I don't consider it much of a contradiction to be for abolition and also own slaves. I farm cotton, own several mandingos, but I also donate to the quakers so they can run the underground railroad. Disliking some business practices should not automatically interfere with my comfort.

(Other suggested replacements include: ....be for saving baby seals and wearing their fur,...be for stopping the holocaust and joining the SS,...be for killing John Tesh and buying his CDs)

Re:Set top players without a CSS license?

[ivan256]

Why do people think I was trolling with this comment. I hadn't been able to find such a player (after much searching) and was wondering if anyone out there knew something I didn't. I have no intentions of living in a cave. I own both a DVD player, and almost a hundred DVDs. Whatever the cost is that is passed on from the licensing charges is not enough for me to refuse purchase. I'd just rather not give them extra cash if I don't have to. I've seen the foreign players, but from what it seems they may or may not license CSS. Just becuase they dont implement macrovision or region coding doesn't mean that they haven't forked over cash at some point.

If such a thing doesn't exist I will remain content maintaining my EFF membership.

Re:Set top players without a CSS license?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Shinco has a CSS license. Or if they do, they ignore it :) Their players don't do region coding or macrovision. www.lik-sang.com sells them, among other places.

Re:Set top players without a CSS license?

[bartle]

Why do people think I was trolling with this comment.

Didn't think you were trolling, I had just noticed that the only response you got was from a troll. So I answered your question to the best of my knowledge: that there are no available domestic players available that don't support the DVDCCA.

I also threw in a few words on why I didn't think it was hypocritical to buy one, since a number of Slashdotters seem to believe that to live a normal life is working with The Man... or something like that.

Anyway, didn't mean to offend.

Re:Thank Goodness, I don't have to worry about ELP

[sealawyer]

The Supreme Court didn't hold any such thing. This is a state court of appeals ruling. The cases cited in the opinion as support for the ruling are federal court of appeals cases which were not appealed to the Supreme Court.

Sealawyer

Java on Slashdot?

[EatAtJoes]

You'd think that code fragment would be in Perl, or Python, or even better, obfuscated c:

for(;printf("This decision [etc]");tiredOfHearingIt){}

Re:Java on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's just trying to add a little CLASS to the discussion.

[when I thought of that it wasn't so lame!]

Re:Java on Slashdot?

[east_bay_pete]

Java? Bean there, done that.

Re:Java on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Java? Bean there, done that.

That's either illiterate, or very droll!

Re:Java on Slashdot?

[MrFredBloggs]

I`m finding this conversation hard to interpret. It would perhaps be more convenient if you compiled your thoughts into a more easily processable package.

Re:Thank Goodness, I don't have to worry about ELP

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about the supreme court?

Re:Gah...

[Anonymous Coward]

Be sure to tell that to the copyright police when they receive an anonymous tip that you've got a copy of DeCSS. When you tell them that you have no idea how it was placed on your hard drive, and that it must have been the same hackers, I'm sure they'll believe you.

Re: This just rocks...

[megaduck]

<? echo "Darn Java geeks..."; ?>

Seriously though, sometimes code (or pseudocode) is a more concise way of getting an idea across. Look at the number of == or != statements in the subject lines of Slashdot posts. Just an observation...

Broader Implications

[Coniine]

Now, currently if I write cryptographic code that I place under GPL or in the public domain I am required to notify BXA regarding the nature of the code and the URL from which it is available.

If source code is truly speech and the 1st Ammendment rights trump commercial rights and national security then the BXA notification requirement amounts to prior restraint.

Why do I feel that we won't see this tested in a substantial way so that potential prosecution for violation of the notification requirements can retain its big stick value against little guys who like to share troublesome code with the big wide world?

Suspicious in CA

Re: This just rocks...

[Anonymous Coward]

if(bReadingSlashdot && nStoryType==TYPE_YRO && nStoryTone==TONE_BAD){<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;print("Oh man, lawyers suck!\n");<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;break;<br>
}<br>
else{<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;printf("This rocks!\n");<br>
}<br>

I thought it was about the DMCA

[Sanity]

I got the impression that this was all about the DMCA, yet it seems that they are actually using Trade Secret law to suppress DECSS, not the DMCA...

Re:I thought it was about the DMCA

[WillSeattle]

it seems that they are actually using Trade Secret law to suppress DECSS, not the DMCA...

Not just Trade Secret Law, but California's Trade Secret Law, which is quite different from that of other states.

I think you're correct that the appeals court did not directly rule on the use of the DCMA to suppress free speech, but they implied that even the DCMA must bow to the constitution, since it is not a constitutional amendment in its own right. Free speech wins against all but other constitutional laws, from what I can gather of the decision.

Re:I thought it was about the DMCA

[bcilfone]

After reading this, I was reminded of a Simpsons quote:

Amendment To Be: But, if we change the Constitution...
Boy: Then we can make all sorts of crazy laws!

Re:I thought it was about the DMCA

[The Milky Bar Kid]

Free speech wins against all but other constitutional laws, from what I can gather of the decision.

But wait, there's more...

The first amendment wins against other constitutional laws as well. The judges quoted precedent that the first amendment takes precedence over the sixth amendment (the right to a fair trial), under certain circumstances

It seemed to imply that there is only ONE thing that can override the first amendment, and that is grave national security threats (troop movements in wars, things like that). IANAL, but if everyone followed this precedent, DMCA would be dead in the water.

Here's hoping.

a nice distinction between evils

[macsox]

i appreciate that the link directly from the summary is only to the pdf. apparently, timothy had to decide between the closed-source microsoft word format and the closed-source pdf to link to, and choose in favor of the company with fewer egregious evil acts.

Re:a nice distinction between evils

[Anonymous Coward]

From the PDF Specification Manual (warning: PDF FORMAT).

Adobe owns the copyright in the data structures, operators, and the written specification for the particular interchange format called the Portable Document Format. These elements may not be copied without Adobe's permission.
...
However, Adobe desires to promote the use of the Portable Document Format for information interchange among diverse products and applications. Accordingly, Adobe gives copyright permission to anyone to:

Prepare files in which the file content conforms to the Portable Document Format.

Write drivers and applications that produce output represented in the Portable Document Format.

Write software that accepts input in the form of the Portable Document Format and displays the results, prints the results, or otherwise interprets a file represented in the Portable Document Format.

Copy Adobe's copyrighted list of operators and data structures, as well as the PDF sample code and PostScript language Function definitions in the written specification, to the extent necessary to use the Portable Document Format for the above purposes.

The only condition on such copyright permission is that anyone who uses the copyrighted list of operators and data structures in this way must include an appropriate copyright notice.

Hmmm..... Sounds kind of familiar. We own the copyright but you may use it. Just comply with our specifications and give us credit for coming up with the format.

Try going to GhostScript.Com to get a Linux compatible PDF reader/writer.

Ahhhh... I yearn for the good old days when being able to use a computer actually meant you had to know something.

A paradox?

[Eyetapper]

So as I understand it, the right to disclose the DeCSS code is upheld as freedom of speech.

However, the DMCA takes away the right to research and develop the code in the first place.

So as I see it, this decision and the DMCA are at odds on a fundamental level. If the government says its OK to disclose details of DeCSS, how can it still say its illegal to develop DeCSS?

Re:A paradox?

[sealawyer]

Perhaps, but one of the difference is that the DMCA is a federal statute that does invoke a constitutional issue (the Commerce Clause) and thus there will be some constitutional balancing.

Trade secret law is a state issue and thus does not invoke a competing constitutional issue.

Finally, the court didn't say that it was okay to disclose DeCSS. They said that the government cannot act to prevent disclosure before it occurs by issuing an injunction. No prior restraint.

Re:A paradox?

[Eyetapper]

Thanks. Good response.

When you point out that trade secret law is a state issue, and thus doesn't invoke a competing constitutional issue, i can't help but wonder why this would be the system. Doesn't this allow state laws to circumvent the constitution? ( which, I personally would argue, isn't desirable).

i.e. when its trade secret, does this mean the constitution is thrown out the window?

As an example, we see the govt doing this when they purchased satellite photos of a conflict zone to prevent media from getting it. This protects the photos through copyright laws allowing (as I understood the issues) the gov't to avoid constitutional questions being raised. In the end, the effect was similar - a controlled blackout of satellite images, perhaps a justifiable ends in that case, but it did not require examination of the constitutional issues at hand. So govt can take action which potentially violates the constitution without due process.

So my feeling is that circumventing the constitution through trade secret laws is a very strange thing, even if technically possible - I believe the constitution is more important than trade secrets - at any level of law making.

Perhaps it needs to recognized that technological change means that trade secrets have impact beyond just industry and commerce, and have begun to challenge the very fundamentals upon which the constitution was formed.

all right

[jbridge21]

If you don't have a copy of DeCSS yet, go download a copy right now. I've got that program and so much more, link in the my sig.

Is the appeals court ticked off?

[n0ano]

The order granting a preliminary injunction is reversed. Defendant Andrew Bunner shall recover his appellate costs.
Any lawyers out there? I thought that American courts don't usually award costs. Does this mean that the appellate court was ticked off or is this just normal boiler plate?

Re:Is the appeals court ticked off?

[Vegeta99]

I think what they mean is that it costs a certian amount of money to file in court, plaintiff usually pays. In an appelate court, whoever appeals pays, and if they win the appeal, they dont have to. I'm not sure if DVDCCA had to pay or if the court had to eat it.

Re:Is the appeals court ticked off?

[Luddite666]

It seems that the Court of Appeals doesn't think too highly of Hon. William J. Elfving, the trial judge. Look at the Court's liberal use of sic in its quoting of Elfving's opinion. It even sic'ed his use of 'both' before listing four nouns (instead of two).
I thinks the justices might see the Honorable Elfving as a bit of a ninny.

Nonsense

[Smallest]

Computer source code, thought unintelligible to many is the preferred method of communication among computer programmers.

that's like saying bridges are the preferred method of communication among civil engineers. code is for compilers, text is for people.

-c

Re:Nonsense

[madhakr]

Your analogy limps pretty badly. I think that few people would deny that plans and blueprints are preferred methods of communications among civil engineers. The bridge itself would be more like object code, which only the truly l33t use to communicate with other humans. Source code, on the other hand, is perfectly valid means of communication. Ever see a civil engineering textbook with an actual bridge in it? How about a programming book with source code?

Re:Nonsense

[JesseL]

Actually it's more like saying blueprints are the preferred method of communiction among civil engineers. And they are.

Re:Nonsense

[Smallest]

source code is not the preferred method of communication among programmers. for example, i prefer to communicate with other programmers with English, written or spoken.

-c

Re:Nonsense

[Tin Weasil]

Bridges are the resulting outcome of construction work.

If two civil engineers wanted to exchange ideas about how to build a good bridge, exchanging plans and blueprints would probably be a good way of doing it.

If two programmers wanted to exchange ideas about how to display a bitmap, exchanging source code would probably be the way to do it.

Or, for those of you in Mensa who need more clarification:
blueprint is to bridge as source code is to object code.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, its like saying blueprints are the preferred method of communication among civil engineers.

The finished bridge is more like the object code that comes out of the compiler.

Re:Nonsense

[Smallest]

the quote sayeth: Computer source code, thought unintelligible to many is the preferred method of communication among computer programmers.

again, nonsense. where i work, English is the preferred method of communication. source code, while (yes, i admit) more analagous to blueprints than bridges, is not "the preferred" method of communicating among programmers.

-c

Re:Nonsense

[The Blue Meanie]

No, it's more like saying blueprints are the preferred method of communication among civil engineers. Which is a perfectly valid statement.

blueprints:source code::bridge:object code

Re:Nonsense

[Sj0]

I prefer code to show how something is done.

while ((Assholes_In_World == TRUE) && (Polititians_Can_Be_Bought == TRUE)) {
action = Kick(ass) & Take(names);
}

:)

Re:Nonsense

[jaoswald]

Computer source code, thought unintelligible to many is the preferred method of communication among computer programmers.

"that's like saying bridges are the preferred method of communication among civil engineers. code is for compilers, text is for people."

Source code *is* text, except in languages like National Instruments' LabView.

Blueprints and engineering drawings, not bridges, are a suitable method of communication between civil engineers. They can be "converted" to bridges by builders reading the blueprints. That does not destroy their value as a medium of communication.

Source code is a way to express an algorithm in a way that it may be *both* understood by humans and converted into executable form.

The court specifically recognized that the corresponding object code would not be a medium of human-human communication, but rather in the nature of a mechanical device.

The quote you made from the decision is in the context of discussions of encryption. Surely, for a complicated encryption algorithm, the clearest, most precise, and most unambiguous expression would be a code-like representation, whether in pseudo-code or a real programming language.

Are you suggesting that bridge designers communicating with bridge builders by text alone would work? Do you think the bridge would at all resemble the true intentions of the designer? Would it even be safe to walk across? I believe we would clearly prefer that communication to take place through accurate drawings.

Likewise, discussions between cryptographers and people implementing encryption systems would almost certainly be most accurate if conducted using code-like constructions. Accurate descriptions of encryption technology are essential to avoid potentially serious errors, such as security flaws. Therefore, communication in source code is far preferable to ordinary text.

Re:Nonsense

[czardonic]

code is for compilers, text is for people.

Speaking of nonesense!

Code is for any reader, compiler of human, who can derive meaning from it. Plain and simple.

Re:Nonsense

[windex]

Source code is, however, much prefered if English isin't known by one of the two parties in the exchange. Imagine talking to Microsoft tech support lackies who only spoke Bushman. :)

Re:Nonsense

[joshamania]

Aye, but if you didn't have the code to begin with, you wouldn't be able to communicate with your peers, you fucking moron (i've got the karma to blow), so flame on...

"Hey bob, why don't you use a for loop, oh wait, I can't say that, never mind that, just use that thingy to talk to the other thingy to get the stuff we need done done..."

Re:Nonsense

[LMCBoy]

I think you're definition of communication is a bit too narrow. Yes, even programmers don't communicate using source code when they discuss last night's ball game, or where to have lunch. However, source code *is* the preferred way for programmers to communicate to each other, how to make a computer do things.

This is why OSD is so important and successful. If source code was not a valid means of communication between programmers, there would be no reason to show anyone else your code. Keep in mind, you never show the computer the source code, it must first be compiled/interpreted to machine language. The source itself is for human eyes only.

Re:Nonsense

[BitwizeGHC]

Yes, but sometimes showing commented source code for a complex algorithm is more illustrative of the implementation of the algorithm than attempting to supply a verbose explanation in English, which is optimized for less technical forms of communication. Source code is thus a preferred method of discourse for certain contexts.

Regardless, what the court essentially was saying was, "Is source code a form of expression? Yes. Are the movie studios' intellectual property rights more important than the near absolute right to freedom of expression the First Amendment secures? No, and don't give us any of that 'national security' crap, either."

Re:Nonsense

[roju]

However, are blueprints and plans considered "speech" under the US Constitution?

I was going to try to prove that they're not, but I can't even think of an example of them not being. Hrmm..

Re:Nonsense

[shogun]

// FIXME: duke gets stuck in a very fast
// do nothing loop if neither gum or ass is
// available
while (1)
{
if(gum > 0)
{
chew(gum);
}
if(ass > 0)
{
kick(ass);
}
}

Re:Nonsense

[cobbe]

``Code is for compilers, text is for people''?

No.

A natural language like English is, of course, the preferred means of communication for informal discourse. Natural languages, however, are often too ambiguous and verbose to function well when expressing precise algorithms.

Those of you who are programmers, you tell me: which is easier to understand, the DeCSS code in C, or the same code in haiku? (I think you can find the latter off Dr. Felten's homepage at Princeton.) Which is easier to work with?

Taken at its face value and out of context, the court's statement is going to be somewhat ridiculous, yes. However, that does not change the fact that programming languages are as useful for communicating algorithms between people as they are for communicating algorithms from a person to a computer.

Re:Nonsense

[dbrutus]

It would be better to say that blueprints are the preferred method of civil engineers to communicate with builders. How much information via english passes between the architect, engineer, and builder? Now how much information is passed via blueprint?

Get the point? Good.

DB

Re:Nonsense

[Datafage]

How bout this, as a good basis:
"If it can be copyrighted, it's speech!"

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer source code, ... is the preferred method of communication among computer programmers.

that's like saying bridges are the preferred method of communication among civil engineers. code is for compilers, text is for people.

Bridges aren't provided with copyright protection.

Code as Expression

[Puk]

Is the court filing available in source code form?

:)

-Puk

Re:Code as Expression

[Anonymous Coward]

#include
#include
#include
#include
using namespace std;

void main(){

judge j;
rock r;
geek bunner;
fascist DVDCCA;

if(j.iq>=r.iq && !j.bribed()) {
DVDCCA.screw_over();
bunner.cash+=VERY_LARGE_NUMBER;
}

}

Most quoted legal document ...

[tjwhaynes]

Looks like this document is full of quotes for us to enjoy here. But for those of us looking to play DVDs on Linux using DeCSS or the information contain therein, this line was particularly reassuring:

Although the social value of DeCSS may be questionable, it is nonetheless pure speech

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

Priceless

[EllisDees]

From the document:

"Although the social value of DeCSS may be questionable, it is nonetheless pure speech."

It's about time a court somewhere recognized the obvious.

Re:Priceless

[EllisDees]

Damn, that's the second time in two days that I've posted almost the exact same thing as someone else at almost the exact same time...my karma is in free-fall!

The door is still open...

[Coniine]

While the expressive nature of source code has just been affirmed by the court I think we should note that the functional nature of compiled source code can still be regulated.

I'm suspicious of WinXP and other versions for that matter. I'm suspicious that even though the SSSCA seems to have been put to bed for the moment that assaults on our systems are yet to be devised.

So far the privacy of your own home is almost intact but this will be an ongoing game.

Encouraged but still paranoid.

1st ammendment alive and well

[PhipleTroenix]

[I]t is clear that few things, save grave national
security concerns, are sufficient to override First Amendment interests.

It was begining to look like the 1st ammendment was dead. This is from a state court. I hope the ass-holes appeal and get trounced before the supremes.

Alternate reality.

[Quebec]

-courtinfo.ca.gov , something that looks like owned by government, provides both pdf and doc
(can't be more efficient in reaching everyone)

-A ruling stating that DVDCCA can't own/rule the world and the mind of the world like they wish.

-A court acknowledging that source code is free
speech.

That can't be.... I am still dreaming...
no.. I woke up in one of those strange Star
Trek alternate reality!

Maybe a crack in UCTA, too

[Rocketboy]

The decision made a point of mentioning that UCTA language allows the potential perpetual withholding of information, whereas the Constitutional basis for the Copyright Act specifies that protection is for a limited time. (IANAL) but this seems to me to be a fair basis for overturning at least that part of the UCTA, and similar recent Acts which appear to be based on yet contradict this part of the Constitution. It will be interesting (to me, anyway,) to see whether this gets picked up and used in current or later cases.

!Nonsense

[Myrv]

No, that is NOT what it's saying.

It's closer to:

"blueprints, though unitelligible to many, is the preferred method of communication among civil engineers"

Computer code (at least in the case of compiled languages) is not the final product. One needs a compiler to produce the final product just as one needs a construction crew to finish a bridge. The code is merely a blueprint, a very detailed one, but nonetheless just a set of instructions.

This of course is beside the point, as computers advance the idea of a programming language could very well disappear. It is not inconceivable that in decade or two we will be able to provide a program with a design document written in prose and have it generate the program. The question is where do you draw the line. For me, if the code is not directly executable on a machine (it either needs an interpreter or a compiler) than it's covered by free speech.

Re:!Nonsense

[Bronster]

Computer code (at least in the case of compiled languages) is not the final product. One needs a compiler to produce the final product just as one needs a construction crew to finish a bridge. The code is merely a blueprint, a very detailed one, but nonetheless just a set of instructions.

And luckily for us, construction crews are not yet illegal, nor do you have to have a licence to own one. You do need to have a licence to use one to construct a bridge though (usually), even on your own property (building codes).

I wonder how long until you have to have a licence of programming ability and submit your 'blueprints' to a central authority before building a program?

-stax, you need to repost

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your cat just walked across your keyboard and accidentally hit submit.

I'm sorry too.

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't flame you, but I'd like to point out that today is the day you've been given. If you don't care enough to defend your rights, for how much longer do you suppose there will be those who do?

At some point, everyones going to need to wake up from the dream world they've been living in and realize that if they don't care enough to change things, pretty soon nobody else will either. We're in serious trouble here folks. The fourth amendment doesn't mean squat anymore and our congress has illegally overridden it with the passage of the Anti-Terrorism bill. That may be blatantly unconstitutional, but precious few are doing anything about it.

Just please, realize that your participation is neccesary in the maintainance of your freedom. If you don't, you will wake up one morning and wonder why nobody did anything to stop the storm troopers, I mean, federal agents kicking down your door.

The real issue is the trade secret status of DeCSS

[jms]

Yes, it's a win, but the court made it perfectly clear that it holds no opinion on the REAL stakes in this war.

The real stakes are the loss of the DVDCCA monopoly over permissable player features.

The entire DVD industry, through the DVDCCA, have devised a set of mutual licensing handcuffs that they are all to wear -- DVD player manufacturers may not manufacture DVD players with unencrypted digital outputs. They may not manufacture and sell region-free players. This keeps the ability to make fair use of DVDs out of the hands of consumers.

If the trade secret status of the decryption algorithms is found to be lost, then third parties, not bound by restrictive DVDCCA licenses, may well be free to offer DVD players with such consumer-friendly features as unencrypted digital outputs, no region codes, and the ability to fast-forward over unwanted trailers and FBI "notices", while the entire current DVD player industry will be unable to match those features, due to their contracts with the DVDCCA, without in effect dissolving the entire licensing structure and having to compete in, horrors, an open, unrestricted marketplace.

Those are the real stakes. They have nothing to do with copyright infringement, and everything to do with what may turn out to be a "suicide pact" amongst all DVD hardware manufacturers.

The court offers soothing, reassuring words to the DVDCCA and current player manufacturers:

We express no opinion as to whether permanent injunctive relief may be obtained after a full trial on the complaint, as that issue is not before us.9 We further have no occasion to decide whether damages for Bunner's disclosure would be appropriate in these circumstances. DVDCCA may, of course, bring an action for damages or even injunctive relief against anyone who violates the Act by conduct rather than speech.

"violates the Act by conduct" presumably means to manufacture an unlicensed player, and that's the real reason that the MPAA/DVDCCA is spending millions of dollars suppressing DeCSS.

Impact on the 2600 case?

[Tim Doran]

Anybody care to speculate? (Not that mere speculation ever grabs any traction here on /. mind you ;)

Re:Impact on the 2600 case?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Probably none. This is a CA court case. See this post.

Bravo

[Vegeta99]

This small win for free speech and the computing community gives me a sense that the legal system still can work. If only we can get it to the US Supreme, then, perhaps the DMCA could be ruled unconstitutional.

PDF converted toHTML/PNG

[Anonymous Coward]

Click here if PDF/Word pisses you off, as it did me.

This is the document after being processed by pdf2html.

Check this out..

[Cryptosporidium]

dachshund said:

If the "source code==expressive speech" argument is upheld by higher courts, the DMCA...

While I'm not sure of your definition of a higher court, this finding (US Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit - Junger v. Daley) states:

The issue of whether or not the First Amendment protects encryption source code is a difficult one because source code has both an expressive feature and a functional feature. The United States does not dispute that it is possible to use encryption source code to represent and convey information and ideas about cryptography and that encryption source code can be used by programmers and scholars for such informational purposes. Much like a mathematical or scientific formula, one can describe the function and design of encryption software by a prose explanation; however, for individuals fluent in a computer programming language, source code is the most efficient and precise means by which to communicate ideas about cryptography.

... The fact that a medium of expression has a functional capacity should not preclude constitutional protection.

... Particularly, a musical score cannot be read by the majority of the public but can be used as a means of communication among musicians. Likewise, computer source code, though unintelligible to many, is the preferred method of communication among computer programers.

Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment.

Re:Check this out..

[dachshund]

Er, let me rephrase:

If the "source code==expressive speech" argument is upheld by higher courts, in this and other cases...

*adjusting sheepish expression*

Is this case being appealed?

More nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

"This of course is beside the point, as computers advance the idea of a programming language could very well disappear. It is not inconceivable that in decade or two we will be able to provide a program with a design document written in prose and have it generate the program."

Nor is it inconceivable that in a decade or two Elvis will have returned to lead us to world peace and universal happiness. Funnily enough I'm not holding my breath.

Implications of the decision

[WillSeattle]

OK, I've read thru the PDF of the decision.

IANAL, but it seems to me that it boils down to the appelate court saying (with a lot of other things):

Source Code is Free Speech. DCMA cannot override the right of free speech, especially if it does not involve the use of slander, libel, or "fighting words".

Therefore, you cannot have a trade secret law, especially one from a state, override the constitutional right to free speech. Ever.

This implies that I can thereby describe WINE as free speech, and MSFT can't sue me for trade secrets, since it's an alternate method for responding to inputs and outputs.

This also implies that DCMA is functionally flawed on a constitutional basis.

This lastly implies that the only way to overturn this is to have the US Supreme Court or some higher court overturn this decision.

Good.

Time to start coding!

Re:Implications of the decision

[daegol]

>This implies that I can thereby describe WINE >as free speech, and MSFT can't sue me for trade >secrets, since it's an alternate method for >responding to inputs and outputs.

Of course, if my understanding is correct, you may be prohibited from compiling and using the source code. This depends on whether or not you have "improperly" violated a trade secret. The document specifically notes that reverse engineering is proper (or is this only in Denmark?)

It looks like the real stakes depend on whether or not the original DeCSS writer was obligated to comply with the 'click wrap' license of the Xing decoder. If he was not, and the reverse engineering was "fair", then we can expect DVD players that no longer have to comply with all the restrictions that DVDCSA forces.

If the code wasn't fairly reverse engineered then I guess we have to do something like the clean rooms used to create new BIOSes a decade or so ago? Anyone figure out how the court determines what country's IP laws apply to this thing?

Re:Implications of the decision

[Anonymous Coward]

If the code wasn't fairly reverse engineered then I guess we have to do something like the clean rooms used to create new BIOSes a decade or so ago? Anyone figure out how the court determines what country's IP laws apply to this thing?

No - just get your friend to click Yes on the click-agreement to the license, then send him on his way and proceed to do your reverse engineering. However, that's assuming those licenses are even legal in the first place. They are so incredibly unenforceable it's a wonder the court even recognizes it as part of the plantiff's argument.

For example: can a 15 year old Norweigian kid enter into a legally binding agreement with Xing in the first place? Not bloody likely - not even if it was signed on paper, unless his legal guardians were in agreement.

Re:Implications of the decision

[cpt kangarooski]

Or the circuits could come into conflict, which seems likely, given way the DeCSS case in NY (2d Circuit) has been going. But this would tend to induce the Supremes to come in more quickly than they would otherwise.

But if the other circuits were hardasses, this decision would not be a barrier to them.

Re:Implications of the decision

[WillSeattle]

Of course, if my understanding is correct, you may be prohibited from compiling and using the source code. This depends on whether or not you have "improperly" violated a trade secret. The document specifically notes that reverse engineering is proper (or is this only in Denmark?)

But nothing would stop me from making a distro with the source code, that you (the end user) could compile.

It seems that all I have to do is avoid the act of turning the DeCSS code into ones and zeros and I'm protected under free speech, as we read the decision.

By compiling it, you take the onus upon yourself. Under free speech I describe how the code works, explicitly, but I have not literally made the machine code.

The only problem would be in debugging the implementation. Perhaps I might be able to have someone in Norway do that for me and describe the bugs they see, so that I could then change the source code.

All this would be legit.

Re:Implications of the decision

[Fastolfe]

Not quite.. All this decision is about is the preliminary injunction preventing the guy from posting DeCSS on his site on the grounds that it unlawfully discloses their trade secrets. It makes NO ruling whatsoever regarding any other penalties or damages they can slap on him if he continues to do so. Just because it's a trade secret doesn't mean somebody can't write about it.

In addition, if he violated the terms of a contract (e.g. "click-wrap" license) by reverse engineering the software to obtain any of this information, Xing could potentially sue him on those grounds, but that would end up testing the validity of those types of licenses, and I don't think they're confident they'd win.

So basically, this was just the court saying, "You can't forbid him from posting this just because he's discussing a trade secret." He can still bring problems down on himself via other avenues if he decides to continue doing so.

Re:Implications of the decision

[mpe]

For example: can a 15 year old Norweigian kid enter into a legally binding agreement with Xing in the first place? Not bloody likely - not even if it was signed on paper, unless his legal guardians were in agreement.

Even then it might only be legally binding on "Xing" anyway. Which is the real reason for wishing to avoid contracts with minors, since they have all the power.

Re:Implications of the decision

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think debugging it would be a problem. Debugging is, by definition, done on something that doesn't work. If the compiled code doesn't work, then it doesn't have the "functional" aspect that the court is talking about.

Of course when you weed out that last error and it links properly, *instant criminal*. Heh.

Actually even that is debateable, since you haven't used the object code at all (think: lockpicks), and you haven't distributed it to anyone.

pure speech vs conduct

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so I understand that the CA court indicated that source code is speech...what is unclear to me is the legal difference between speech and conduct.

Someone care to explain?

Re:pure speech vs conduct

[duckbill]

I'll try, but you could take a whole semester of contract law and still have some gaping wholes.

In legal jurisprudence, you can think of speech and conduct as a continuum. On the left is pure speech, "That dog is ugly." On the right is pure action-- You shoot the dog. In the middle there are actions that are between the two. For instance, take three actions considered to be speech - Burning a cross, burning a flag, wearing a T-shirt that says "Fuck the draft". In all cases you are performing an action, but the action involves expression, and the expression is protected. Take example 1. You could be sued for trespass when placing a burning cross on the yard; You could be sued for destruction of property, if it causes damage, but you could not be prosecuted under a hate crime because your expression was protected speech.
On the other end of the spectrum. If you saw an angry mob and you told them to go lynch someone, while that's style a spoken word, its more tantamount to action. You no your words will cause them to perpetrate the action.
In this case, its unclear about what that actually means; however, here is my bet. You can't sue someone for posting the DeCss algorithm, but you can sue them for using the DeCss software.

Re:The real issue is the trade secret status of De

[scharkalvin]

There should be a compromise middle ground. A Linux player could be build that would comply with the 'handcuffs' imposed by the license agreement, though the open source nature of the beast means users would have to voluntarly live by the agreement since they could just modify the code. The only point where fair use was violated was there NOT being a linux player. Is it fair use to be able to make copies of a DVD disk? (perhaps to be able to view it on a VHS machine as well).

What does this mean for DMCA?

[forgetmenot]

IANAL hence I am a little confused...
Doesn't DeCSS still violate the DMCA? I don't think the DMCA has been at issue here but considering that DeCSS can be viewed as a means to circumvent copy-protection, couldn't DVDCCA still go after Bunner on those grounds? The ruling talks about copy-violation not being an issue due to the file-sizes involved (gee.. how long will that hold?) but it's the circumvention of copy protection devices (not the copying itself) that the DMCA specifically guards against if I'm not mistaken.

Regardless, doesn't the interpretation of code==free speech and the longwinded explanation of free speech not being limited even in matters of national-security kinda blow the whole DMCA off its track?

Inquiring minds want to know before hope is raised and then subsequently dashed.

Wait a minute. This isn't DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

The DVDCA had brought the preliminary injunction
under the United Trade Secrets Act (USTA). This
is not the same as DMCA. I dont think the USTA
provides copyright works with any protection against
circumvention devices. If the DMCA had been overthrown
in lieu of the First Amendment Protections, I would
have had more reason to rejoice. So I wonder why was the
case not brought under the DMCA!?

Re: This just rocks...

[VFVTHUNTER]

who cares, all the stuff you guys have posted is officially *speech* :)

Xine

[javilon]

On xine.sourceforge.net there is the following note:

Note: xine does not support locked/encrypted DVDs, as there seem to be legal problems in that area. At this point it is unclear what the legal implications of providing that functionality are.

Does this news mean that until the ruling is made it is ok for them to include CSS decrypting code in Xine?

If so, can somebody e-mail them, please? :-)

Re:Xine

[duckbill]

I would urge caution. The appeals court said that releif could be granted on action rather than speech. If Xine uses trade secrets, compiling the code or using the software would be close to action. Posting the code would be speech.

Bad moderators!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is FUNNY, not flamebait.

Sure puts the corporate entities in their place...

[TeckWrek]

"DVDCCA's statutory right to protect its economically valuable trade secret is not
an interest that is 'more fundamental' than the First Amendment right to freedom of
speech or even on equal footing with the national security interests and other vital
governmental interests that have previously been found insufficient to justify a prior
restraint."

Re:Nonsense: What about Blue-Prints?

[jwd-oh]

wrong analogy: while bridges are not the preferred method of communication among civil engineers, Blue-prints are. Computer source code is a blue print, pure and simple. With a blue-print and the appropriate tools (hammers, etc.) someone can make a bridge. With computer source code and the appropriate tools (compilers, etc.) someone can make a computer program.

Both Blue-Prints and Computer source code are the textual (and graphical) representations of technical specificatin design to fulfill user requirements. and as such they are nothing but speech.

Some great precedent (maybe v. DCMA and SSSCA)

[Mr. Fred Smoothie]

Indeed, this case combined with Bernstein is starting to add up to a nice bit of precedent regarding source code's place vis-a-vis our various constitutional protections. Although the decision in Bersnstein wansn't unanimous, it contains some great stuff also. From the majority opinion:

...we conclude that encryption software, in its source code form ... must be viewed as expressive for First Amendment purposes, and thus is entitled to the protections of the prior restraint doctrine.

See also the later section in Bernstein where the opinion speculates as to possible 4th Amendment implications for encryption software in particular as well.

For the first time in a couple years I'm experiencing a glimmer of hope that the checks and balances in our system of governance may actually wind up protecting my rights -- as a programmer, computer & software user, and free citizen of the US -- from the despicable encroachment currently being realized at the hand of law enforcement agencies and especially private corporate interests.

Of course, after Bush v. Gore, y'all forgive me if my cynicism WRT to the Supreme Court keeps this glimmer of hope faint indeed.

Re:Some great precedent (maybe v. DCMA and SSSCA)

[MindStalker]

I wonder, did you ever read the full findings by the supreme court. Basically it stated that the hand recounts had different rules for counting in each county. And as such could not be done fairly without having some sort of rules set forth for all counties to follow, these rules needed to be studied and checked. Which at such time the counties would need to recount from the beginning with the new rules. Such an action would have taken months and was simply rediculus.

Re:Some great precedent (maybe v. DCMA and SSSCA)

[greenrd]

By that moronic logic, since the states have different rules for presidential elections, the US should suspend presidential elections and become a dictatorship until such time as the rules are made "uniform" accross all states, to prevent any perception of unfairness.

Re:Some great precedent (maybe v. DCMA and SSSCA)

[Mr. Fred Smoothie]

Even in the majority opinions, the court conceded that it was abnormal for them not to defer to the state court in interpreting that state's laws.

The USSC's constitutional arguments were bunk, and it's only on the basis of the constitution that they should have been deciding.

Their one constitutional argument was the due process issue. It was a crock; again the majority opinions recognized how extension of their own logic to the entire voting proccess accross states would be highly problematic (and thereby said "so we won't consider it now, but we will still apply the logic to the county recounts").

I am not saying that Gore should have won the election. I'm saying that the USSC should have interpreted the constitution and stayed the hell out of untangling Florida's ridiculously tangled election laws.

I would have had much less problem with the Florida legislature appointing delegates than the obviously partisan and biased USSC procedings and decision.

In short, reread Justice Stevens' dissent. It says it all. My faith in the electoral process is fine. My faith in our nation's highest court as impartial arbiter of justice and the rule of law is, if not shattered, greatly diminished.

This bodes well for the 2nd Amendment, too.

[A_Non_Moose]

The right to keep an bare Digital Crobar-arms.

Can you imagine how much free speech changed with the second Amendment?

It passed? Awww, *SHOOT*...Ack, no wait!!! just an expression!!!

M$ move

[ocie]

Quick. Someone at RedHat, Mandrake, or some other distribution put out a DVD player package. Make a big stink about "innovation" and "giving the customer what they want" If the govt. tells you to stop, counter with:

1) "stop what?"

2) "it is too tightly integrated w/ the OS"

3) "we need to innovate"

4) "OK, we'll change the name of the program"

Hey Bob...

[Mr. Fred Smoothie]

"...why don't you use some type of looping control structure with a initial assignment to some type of counter, a test to be performed prior to each iteration of the loop, and an action to perform after each iteration to repeatedly execute a block of code which -- when executed zero or more times depending on the condition in the test statement -- solves our problem?"

Re:Hey Bob...

[Datafage]

Yeah, you could do it like that. I challenge you to find one programmer who prefers that.

Re:Hey Bob...

[joshamania]

That's a big 'ol "No shit!" props to you! Heheheh...

IANAL. Who is?

[JWhitlock]

I'm seeing a lot of interesting cases being cited in this ruling. Some have been mentioned already, and a few others have caught my eye (Religious Technology Center v Lerma (E.D.Va. 1995) 897 F.Supp. 260, 263. - Isn't the RTC the Scientology group?) Is there an online resource for a summary of these rulings, or is this a situtation where you need paralegals and a wall of books?

The real villian is still DMCA

[sethamin]

I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but this really doesn't get us anything. Sure, the ruling is quite favorable in the precedents it establishes for the main trial. But in this case we're attacking the USTA, which as the verdict noted, has no constitutional backing. The issue in this case is simply whether DeCSS can be "published" on websites where it wasn't obtained by improper means (e.g industrail espionage).

The real obstacle ahead is the DMCA, which gives legislative weight to EULAs. In this case they weren't challenging the DMCA. The court sidestepped talking about the DMCA issue by claiming that they were not going to rule on whether Jon Johannsen's reverse engineering in Norway was "proper". But that's the real problem here: we are still being denied our "fair use" of software, and it's not even clear whether people in countries with less restrictive laws can exercise those rights for us.

It doesn't look good in this area to me. I doubt the DMCA will be overturned since the issue here is not "free spech" vs "trade secrets", but "IP rights" vs "fair use". IP rights are guaranteed in the constitution and its not clear that "fair use" is. The best we can hope for is that some court will rule that the constitution both guarantees those IP rights but also limits those as well (a la "fair use") and thus EULAs can't impose Draconian rules on how to use software.

licence[sic]

[SiliconEntity]

Anybody notice the spelling and grammatical errors the appellate court pointed out in the trial court's injunction? The trial court thought license was spelled licence, and referred to "both" alternatives when listing four of them. It made the trial court judge look illiterate.

Judges hate to be reversed, and here the appeals court not only overturns the injunction but also points out that the judge can't spell or write.

Re:licence[sic]

[BlueTurnip]

I don't have my copy of the Webster dictionary with me, but my Oxford dictionary (British) lists both spellings: license and licence.

I think the American legal system uses the Webster dictionary, so can anyone who has one handy check to see if both spellings are permissible?

Caffeine as the basis of communication??

[devphil]

Because computer source code is an espressive means for the exchagne of information and ideas about computer programming,

Damn straight! I always prefer espresso when exchanging information and ideas about progr-

Oh. expressive. Never mind. :-)

(Personal pet peeve of mine is when people do the reverse: refer to the coffee drink as "expresso".)

Re:The real issue is the trade secret status of De

[sydb]

Is a "trade secret" a legally protected entity, and not just "this thing we're not telling anyone, because it's important they don't know about it"?

I thought the algorithms stopped being "trade secrets" as soon as they were publically know.

this helped final judgement

[BlueboyX]

Aside from the fact that this court did not say that DeCSS is so innately evil that it must be stopped immediately, it also made two interesting points. These points will have an impact on upcoming legal precedings, even though they stated that they didnt want to make any judgements themselves.

1. computer source code is speech
2. DeCSS is probably legal in any case if it was not wrongfully obtained

While point #1 may help other cases alot more than the fate of DeCSS, it certainly helps a great deal.

Point #2 is what is really going to help give us the result we want in the final court. Most of the argument in the pdf hinges on whether or not the info for DeCSS was wrongfully obtained. They further boil it down to the click through agreement(and then stop, as they claim to not want to make a decision here). If later courts follow this logic, their cases will hinge on the validity of click-through licenses. These licenses never have been upheld; companies like to pretend they are legal but no court would support that because it only serves to screw over the consumer. If later courts follow the logic precident made in this case, we are all set.

However, if $ talks then certain judges may choose to ignore this. I guess we have to hope for honesty.

Good ruling: Trade Secret vs Copyright Protection

[dbretton]

That was a very interesting read. I do like stories that have a happy ending. :)

What was most interesting was the distinction made between copyrighted works and trade secrets.
Since copyrighted works have a "fair use" policy, it is clear why the DVDCCA attacked under the premise of a "Trade secret" violation. However, the strategy backfired. severely:

My favorite quote (2nd hand source noted) was this:

"'If a threat to national security was insufficient to warrant a prior restraint in New York Times Co. v. United States, the threat to plaintiff's copyrights and trade secrets is woefully inadequate.' (Religious Technology Center v. Lerma (E.D.Va. 1995) 897 F.Supp. 260, 263.)"

Ouch, indeed! This may mean the eventual demise of the California Trade Secrets Act, as its scope is to far-reaching.

What was of interest, however, is that there was no discussion of the DMCA, which may have aided the cause of the DVDCCA. Perhaps the DCDCCA did not want to use that trump card, for fear that their case may rise to a federal court, and bring the DMCA under scrutiny.

Why is that interesting? The DVDCCA must have felt that their strongest case did not lie in protection under the DMCA
(chapter 12, section 1201, subsection b), aware of the (obvious) orthogonality of the DMCA vs Frist Amendment, but rather in trying to re-address the issue under the pretenses of a trade secret.

Oh, BTW, here is that bit from the DMCA to which I referred:

"ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS.
(1) No person shall manufac-ture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any
technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof,..."

Of couse, IANAL (but I play one on slashdot!).

-D

By Conduct...

[Bonker]

If code is speech, and I think that will be found to be legitmate sooner or later, can one not legitimately publish a Free DVD Player Suite as speech against the DVDCAA's restrictive licensing scheme?

Either way, cow's out of the barn. People have been ripping, compressing, and trading DVD's in person via CDR and over Usenet and P2P apps for many, many months now. Even if this is overturned, detonated, whatever... the tools are out there, and they're being used.
Sorry guys. Play again!

Re:By Conduct...

[Trepidity]

If code is speech, and I think that will be found to be legitmate sooner or later, can one not legitimately publish a Free DVD Player Suite as speech against the DVDCAA's restrictive licensing scheme?

Yes, but *only* source code has been ruled speech (and even then not universally, only by two courts AFAIK). Compiled code is not speech, and thus has no First Amendment protection. So the *most* that the court would uphold (if even that) is that you could publish the source code to such a suite legitimately, but you could not distribute compiled binaries of it (say in embedded devices) or implement it in hardware, as those wouldn't be forms of speech.

I wonder why...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

California is part of the Ninth Circuit, so I wonder why the judge in this case didn't cite Bernstein v. Reno, wherein the Ninth Circuit explicitly held up source code as speech?

Yes, I know that's federal and not state.

Re:I wonder why...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Whoops, my bad! The Bernstein case hasn't been heard by the Circuit court yet, only the District court!

Link to HTML version of court document

[Jerp]

Here is the document converted to HTML

Use of DeCSS Can Still be Enjoined

[duckbill]

I've posted this in a couple of replies, so I am probably being redundant. However, I don't see this being discussed, and I think this will be a very important issue.

The appeals court still allows relief on any action that violates the trade secrets. It just allows the source code speech. My humble interpretation -- You can post the DeCss source code, but you can't compile it (object code not speech accd. to CA appeals court) or use it (action).

Re:Use of DeCSS Can Still be Enjoined

[byran lei]

>I've posted this in a couple of replies, so I am probably being
>redundant. However, I don't see this being discussed, and I think this
>will be a very important issue.
>The appeals court still allows relief on any action that violates the
>trade secrets. It just allows the source code speech. My humble
>interpretation -- You can post the DeCss source code, but you can't
>compile it (object code not speech accd. to CA appeals court) or use
it (action).
>
>
And how will this affect the 2nd,3rd and latter generation DVD decoders which may or may not have been based off the DeCSS source code? DeCSS as things stand is now pretty much obsolete. Looks like the trade secrets argument is a tough one to make now that the DeCSS injunction has been reversed, especially with the new generation decoders.

Re:Use of DeCSS Can Still be Enjoined

[duckbill]

If the algorithm/key has not been licensed, I still think the use or assembly of subsequent DVD decoders can be enjoined.
The court overturned the injunction prospectively limiting Bunner's posting of the DeCSS source code. They did leave open the injunction for injunctions based on action rather than speech. Doing so could be made under a trade secret argument. Compiling or improperly using the trade secret would likely to be found as action rather than speech.
In fact if you look at the write up on some journalitic sites (e.g. Yahoo) their reporters suggest that while Bunner cannot be prospectively injoined from posting the source code, he could be injoined to remove the source code. I did not read that into the equation, but its a valid argument.

Don't read the PDF while you are at work...

[mark-t]

... if you have a propensity to make somewhat loud jubilant vocal proclamations when you read good news. I did... it went something like "Yes! Yes! Yes! Woohoo!" The loudness turned more than a few heads, and I had one guy privately ask me if I was trying to show that guys could fake it too.

How is this different from a gag order??

[DCheesi]

Indeed, the Supreme Court has never upheld a prior restraint, even faced with the competing interest of national security or the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.

Err, this may be a dumb question, but what about judges' gag orders? Aren't they limiting free speech in exactly the same way? Seems like the Sixth is beating the First in that case. Or have the Supremes never bothered to rule on that?

So Many Good Citations

[Phoenix Rising]

I liked the part where they used RTC vs. Lerma to enforce their postioning of Trade Secrets below the First Amendment. (If you're living in a hole, that's a Scientology trade secret case...)

Strange bedfellow: interoperability committee

[phr1]

I notice that someone from the American Committee for Interoperable Systems is listed as a "Counsel for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs-Respondents".

That seems to say that the interoperable systems committee is on the side wanting to stop DeCSS. I thought the whole point of DeCSS was to promote interoperability.

I guess it must be one of those "1984" things. War is peace, freedom is slavery, interoperability is DVDCCA restrictions. And the American Committee for Interoperable Systems must be something like the Ministry of Love.

Re:Strange bedfellow: interoperability committee

[bwt]

I noticed this too. I think they have the Plaintiffs and Defendents amici backwards.

Go Slashdot!

[ca1v1n]

I wonder what Andrew Bunner's slashdot ID is. I also wonder how many more slashdotters we're going to be reading about on slashdot for things like this in coming years.

real issues

[rodentia]

You are correct that this is a review of the preliminary injunction and that the real issue in this case is yet to be decided. But can you really say that the ability to watch some trite Hollywood bollocks on an unlicensed player, or the ability to skip the previews of next months iteration of same, is more significant than the establishment of a judicial precedent for the truth:

equally_protected(source code, pure speech).

C'mon.

Re:real issues

[The Milky Bar Kid]

I agree, though in defence of the 'trite Hollywood bollocks thing' I reckon it will have an effect on the freedom of speech issue.

All of the power of the MPAA, RIAA, etc. is in monopolies. They control distribution of art, all the members get fat little profits, nobody rocks the boat. They use said monopoly power to crush any threats to their position (remember digital tapes, anyone?).

In summary, they're all bloody Micro$oft$. And they're also the ones trying to squash the first amendment in the name of their intellectual property.

But what happens to them when their exclusive licence agreements - their sweet little monopolies - aren't there anymore? Open competition. And this is just speculation, but once the market fragments, the MPAA and RIAA won't have near as much money and power as they used to. And when they lose their money and power, congress won't be quite as willing to listen to them as they used to.

So, although I agree that freedom of speech is the issue here, freedom of commerce is another one. And freedom of commerce will, in this case, diminish those groups that aim to restrict freedom of speech.

One possible problem...

[BlueTurnip]

I just read the decision, and I thought it was terrific. When I read the quote from the trade secrets act on page 10 of the opinion, point (3) really bothered me. Point (2) didn't, as it is long established that the First Amendment right to free speech is alienable, that is, it can be signed away in contract. But point (3) seemed to restrict the free speech rights of others who don't enter into a contract. I wondered how this could be constitutional, and I was very pleasantly surprised several pages later to see the court rule that that provision of the law is indeed unconstitutional! What a great decision!

But I found one fatal flaw in the decision, which could basically negate the conclusions when the case goes to trial.

On page 2 of the opinion, in the factual background section, the court states "DeCSS consists of computer source code which describes a method..." and in a footnote describes computer source code as "the language in which computer programmers write their computer programs."

Later in the opinion, in their analysis of the applicability of Junger vs Daley they first quote from that decision: "Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment." And further add "If the source code were compiled to create object code, we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones would not convey ideas."

And a careful reading of the opinion makes it clear, they rely heavily on this analysis of Junger vs Daley in reaching their decision to reverse the preliminary injuction.

The problem is there is an error in their factual background. DeCSS is not source code, but rather a precompiled Windows executable! As far as I know, Jon Johansen has never even released the source code, and even if he as done so by now, he hadn't at the time this suit was brought. I haven't read all the trial documents, so I don't know how this error crept in, but it quite clearly an error. There was a source code package called "css_auth" which was to be included in a Linux DVD driver, and it had the effect of authorizing a DVD-ROM drive to read the keys required for DVD movie playback, but DeCSS is something different entirely, and it is clearly compiled object code, and not source!

You may object at this point that there really isn't a difference between source and object code, as was pointed out by Dr. Touretzky in his testimony in the MPAA vs 2600 case in New York, but this court clearly defines the difference between the two as it understands it, then clearly mislables DeCSS as "source code".

Don't get me wrong, I sure hope Bunner wins this case, but the fact that the one decision in his favor is based on a major factual error does not bode well.

Re:One possible problem...

[bwt]

"If the source code were compiled to create object code, we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones would not convey ideas."

This is a good example of "dicta", meaning a comment on an issue that is not before the court (at least this court didn't think it was before it -- I agree it may have actually been wrong about that).

Of course, it's difficult to understand how DeCSS could disclose any secrets if it's a meaningless string of 1's and 0's with no "conveyed ideas". What does that say about copyrightability of binary software, let alone the DVD movies, which are also 1's and 0's. Of course, DeCSS was created by somebody extracting the ideas from just such a compiled object code, so perhaps if the Court had been briefed on this subject it's dicta would be different.

Kaplan heard extensive expert testimony on that very point. The one thing Kaplan actually did buy off on is that the journey from human thought to speech to source code to object code is a continuum.

DeCSS is not source code, but rather a precompiled Windows executable!

Many people have distributed just the executable, but I'm baffled to hear you suggest that there is no source code. There is, it's in C, it's widely available and it's under the GPL no less.

Many people predicted early on that the C source code would be made legal, while the binary would not be. Of course, DeCSS is completely irrelevenet now. libdvd, drip and their peers are much more robust.

Re:One possible problem...

[Sloppy]

DeCSS is not source code, but rather a precompiled Windows executable! As far as I know, Jon Johansen has never even released the source code

?!?

He did release source code to DeCSS. What do you think everyone was mirroring?

Re:One possible problem...

[BlueTurnip]

but I'm baffled to hear you suggest that there is no source code. There is, it's in C, it's widely available and it's under the GPL no less.

Back when I was downloading DeCSS, and I must admit, I haven't looked at it in nearly a year, all I was able to find, after examining many sites was the executable. Any references to "DeCSS source code" actually pointed to the css_auth package that I refer to in my post which is not a complete DeCSS package. I also remember reading several discussions in which people asked about DeCSS source code and the conclusion was that Jon Johansen had not released it. He may have done so since, but as of about a year ago (after this California suit was brought), it was certainly not as widely available as the DeCSS executable.

Why don't they just put the whole thing in quotes?

[Zapp Brannigan]

I am "very excited" by this "ruling" by "The Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District." It "seems" that they have "finally done the right thing." I look forward to "more rulings of this nature." Finally some judges that "understand" the nature of "digital media" and "copyright."

Judge Patel...further interesting stuff...

[MsGeek]

Further interesting fact: the judge who ruled in the Bernstein case the code was speech is the same judge who nailed Napster to the wall (Marilyn C. Patel).

Actually she's the same judge who is now looking to nail the RIAA to another wall. She apparently is very disturbed about the anti-trust implications of such a cartel as the RIAA.

Very interesting indeed...

READ IT MORE CAREFULLY

[Alsee]

The boasts do not support a claim that he broke the law.

The boasts support the position that if he broke the law that he probably knew it.

The result is he can claim innocence, but he'd have a hard time claiming "oops, sorry, innocent mistake".

How to finance a CD

[Anonymous Coward]

The best method I saw for paying the artists directly was a band I listen to allowing people to pre-order their next CD (which they hadn't even started writing/recording) for double-price ($30 US), with only the promise of having it autographed. A year later, I've got my shiny new CD, plus a free t-shirt, and $5 off other band-related merch.

Oh Susanna did something much like that for her last CD, Sleepy Little Sailor. The pre-ordered copies were just at the regular price, and didn't get autographed, but the people who bought them did get their names listed in the credits. (See if you can find me.) I got mine autographed as well when the next folk festival came through town. Unfortunately, I think it only worked well in this case because her style of music is relatively cheap to record, and she already had a reasonably loyal fan following from previous releases. A band working on its first album, and/or in a costlier style, might have a hard time with this kind of business model.

Those of us who care about this kind of thing have a duty not only to not buy RIAA CDs, but also to buy non-RIAA CDs like this one, support live music, and so on. If we're going to claim that artists can survive in a world that includes peer-to-peer, and that cheaters like the RIAA will never prosper, then we ought to do what we can to make sure those claims stay true.

Free as in . . .

[droleary]

". . . we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones would not convey ideas."
Conclusion:
Code == Free Speech
Compiled Code != Free Speech

This is a really interesting opinion for the court to give, and is behind the reasoning I used when I started the DataFetish site when the whole DeCSS issue got underway. When it gets right down to it, it gets tricky to say that a particular encoding (ASCII source) can in any way be considered free speech moreso than some other encoding (compiled binary) of the same "idea" on the computer. My take on it for the DataFetish site was to present documents with completely opaque encodings, so you just get back a bunch of ones and zeroes; meaningless without using a corresponding decoder.

The opinion seems to reasonably say that a binary sequence doesn't really represent anything unless it is decoded into something that can be considered protected. The double edge is that any binary sequence can be said to encode any kind of information; it's just a matter of the decoder having the proper algorithm to do the transformation. So (in theory :-) I could potentially have a copy of Windows XP up on the DataFetish site, it's just that you may not know which encoding I've used. If MS tries to circumvent the encoding to see if I have XP, they've gone and violated our old friend the DMCA. Ain't technology grand? :-)

Obfuscated C contest

[Alsee]

Compiling source code can IMPROVE human readability.
Just take a look at some of the entries to the obfuscated C contest!

Obfuscated C &lt =&gt not human readable &lt =&gt not protected speach
Compiled obfuscated C &lt =&gt improved human readability &lt =&gt protected speach

Re:Thank Goodness, I don't have to worry about ELP

[Anonymous Coward]

Language is "non computable" - thus no algorizm processor will EVER ( spelled e-v-e-r, byteboy ) succeed. hahaha

What's The URL?

[gnarly]

Sorry if I missed this but it seems like this ruling means he can continue to distribute DECSS
(in the US?) until the official trial. Is this true or was it also shut down by the MPAA, like so many others?

Terrorists? Get serious.

[jcr]

For this kind of malicious persecution, the DVDCCA should be considered an anti-American terrorist group.

I wouldn't call them terrorists. Frivolous litigation is a far cry from terrorism. Let's not dilute the term, please.

-jcr

Comment your code! It's expressive!

[skelter]

The court protects publishing the source code from the injunction because it is expressive and not compiled. So, does commenting my code imply that the code is not as valuable or expressive as my comments, or does it improve the value of my code as a form of expression.

I guess it is clear that I should use meaningful variable names, write clear, intelligible readable code, and only hand optimize in the inner loops when/iff the compiler doesn't cut it.

Does this mean that object code is NOT expressive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since only expressive acts can be copyrighted, then my microsoft code should not have a copyright! IT IS NOT AN EXPRESSION THAT CONVEYS ANY IDEAS

Cool

[Danse]

Actually she's the same judge who is now looking to nail the RIAA to another wall.

Will it be made public? I would LOVE to see Hillary tacked up and made available for public derision, and perhaps tomatoes ;)

trade secrets?

[bob_jenkins]

I just read through the ruling. Wow.

If I followed it correctly, they compared trade secret laws to copyright. By fair use, scholarly discussion, criticism, and excerpts are allowed of copyrighted material, which would totally reveal most trade secrets in no time. The only way to keep a trade secret under copyright law would be to KEEP IT SECRET.

They also said the right to a fair trial didn't take precedence over the right to free speech. Wow. That doesn't sound like how I've heard things practiced. Today I heard that many people were being held as material witnesses to the terrorist attack, and had not been allowed to tell anyone they were being held.

Another comparison that occurred to me as I read the ruling was that trade secretes are like selling a car with hood shut, and requiring car buyers to sign an agreement never to open the hood. Car companies could do that. What would be their recourse if someone actually opened the hood?

Re:The real issue is the trade secret status of De

[jelle]

IANAL, but AFAIK, that is what the UTSA is all about (UTSA = californian law 'Trade Secret Act'). Read the .pdf, it refers to it.

Semi-useless decision

[BarefootClown]

Certainly, this is a victory for the open source crowd. The idea that source code is speech is so natural to us as to be common sense. Having that view upheld by the court is indeed a triumph of law.

However, I'm afraid I have to put a damper on the fun. The court ruled that source code is speech; compiled executables received no such protection. As such, posession of the DeCSS source code is legal, but use or posession of binaries, or even compilation of source (which would produce a binary) is not legal. "You can have it, but you can't use it."

As a practical matter ( WARNING! I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice! If you try this don't say I told you it was OK! If ever there was a time for the BLINK tag, it's this disclaimer...), since you can posess the source code, there is nothing to realistically stop you from using the binaries. In theory, when the system works right, you cannot be searched without a warrant, which requires probable cause to obtain. If you give the feds probable cause, you deserve what you get, but if you keep your mouth shut and use the software quitely in your home, nobody should be able to get a warrant, and you should not be subject to prosecution (under the rule of "it's only illegal if you get caught"). This would also rule out binary distribution--draws attention to yourself. ( Another BLINK disclaimer: I am not advocating breaking any law. I am merely offering my uninformed interpretation of the legal system. ) The DMCA has not been overturned here, it has just been found not to apply to source code. And for those who are thinking what I'm thinking, interpreted languages aren't a back door. You may be able to posess the Perl version of DeCSS, which is executed from source (for all practical purposes), but execution would be circumvention, and the DMCA says "no" to that.

Good points from the case:

• "The fact that a medium of expression has a functional capacity should not preclude constitutional protection."
  
• "Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment."
  

Bad points:

• "DVDCCA may, of course, bring an action for damages or even injunctive relief against anyone who violates the Act by conduct rather than speech." [emphasis from the original ruling]
  
• "And anyone who infringes a copyright held by DVDCCA or by any DVD content provider may be subject to an action under the Copyright Act."
  

Brief summary, in my own words: you can have it, but you can't use it.

Re:Semi-useless decision

[bwt]

The court ruled that source code is speech; compiled executables received no such protection. As such, posession of the DeCSS source code is legal, but use or posession of binaries, or even compilation of source (which would produce a binary) is not legal. "You can have it, but you can't use it."

NO, NO, NO!!! This is a trade secret misappropriation case. Once the secret is out, the secret is out. DeCSS is the intellectual property of Jon Johansen and it was not misappropriated according to this opinion. Thus there is no trade secret based reason not to compile it or post it or whatever. The issue of object code protection is compeletely irrelevent here.

This case is a state law case. DeCSS may still be found to be illegal under the DMCA, but that is a completely different matter.

DMCA != UTSA

[jelle]

I don't think this is directly about the DMCA.

From what I understand from the PDF, the law under which the DVDCSS sought protection is the UTSA, not the DMCA.

btw, I assume you mean the "Digital Milennium Copyright Act", which is DMCA, not DCMA.

No.

[dachshund]

The courts did not say that Bunner boasted about anything. His lack of boasting proves nothing.

The question was whether Johansen clicked on the license before he reverse engineered DeCSS, and if he did, whether that license applies in his jurisdiction. Whether Johansen "knew" he was breaking the law or not is completely irrelevant.

All that matters is whether the DVDCCA could show evidence that Johansen agreed to and subsequently broke a legal contract, thereby making the DeCSS source code "criminally obtained" under the California trade-secret law, and thus affecting Bunner's ability to use it (though, in a separate decision, the appeals court later decided that he couldn't be enjoined from posting it, no matter what.)

The DVDCCA could not show any such evidence. Therefore, they used the fact that Johansen thumbed his nose at other laws as evidence that he might have broken this one. So, no concrete evidence. Not even "circumstancial evidence", as the record states. That "evidence" amounts to spurious name-calling. But because no judge likes a smartass, the court accepted this lack of evidence to the point that they issued an injunction.

That's crappy law, aside from the separate first amendment considerations.

One small step for man...

[thumbtack]

Its a start, and each journey begins with one step.

Re:Bush v. Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have the legal right to invalidate the ruling of a state court on state law, even when the state court openly and blatantly ignores the state constitution and laws. (Remember, the Fla. SC was composed entirely of seven Democrats, and three of the members publicly denounced the Fla. SC ruling as blatantly partisan and illegal.)

So they found a weak excuse in federal law to invalidate an abuse of power on the part of a state supreme court (still strong enought to get seven concurrances), and found a weaker excuse to deny the Fla. SC a third bite at the apple. It was still solid and brilliantly reasoned compared to Roe v. Wade.

Re:Good ruling: Trade Secret vs Copyright Protecti

[bwt]

Ouch, indeed! This may mean the eventual demise of the California Trade Secrets Act, as its scope is to far-reaching.

No, it's old hat that trade secrets only bind people that have a "duty" to keep the secret. That can come from a contractual agreement (an NDA) or a fiduciary duty. You also have a "duty" to not break the law, so blabbing about the results of your industrial spying won't cut it.

What language is best to express yourself in?

[sam_handelman]

Source code is, however, much prefered if English isin't known by one of the two parties in the exchange. Imagine talking to Microsoft tech support lackies who only spoke Bushman. :)

Are you implying that microsoft tech support lackies can code?!

? - can (Microsoft_employees, Code)

Personally, as a form of personal expression I like prolog.

rocks (This_ruling).

cannot (X,Code) :- works_for (X,Microsoft).

In fact, as a form of Satire, expressing yourself in Code trumps copyright! Are you all familiar with the guys in the day who made a snow white+the seven dwarfs gangbang poster and were sued by Disney? They won.

Moderation question - why is no post every funny and insightful?

Re:What language is best to express yourself in?

[epsalon]

Actually, Prolog constants should be lowercase:

? - can (microsoft_employees, code)
rocks (this_ruling).
cannot (X,code) :- works_for (X,microsoft).

Legal Contracts

[Bronster]

All that matters is whether the DVDCCA could show evidence that Johansen agreed to and subsequently broke a legal contract.

IANAL, and IANA{Citizen of the US of A} either, but the DVDCCA also have to show evidence that it was lawful for Johansen to agree to that contract. If the law in Norway is that reverse engineering is lawful for interoperability, then any clauses in the click-wrap agreement are null and void, and hence Johansen can be considered to have not agreed to them, regardless of what the agreement actually says.

Especially if he purchased the software and specified the country in which he was purchasing at the time, I would argue that the company selling the software was implicitly accepting the changes to their click-wrap agreement that would match the laws in the jurisdiction to which they were selling.

Re:Legal Contracts

[dachshund]

IANAL, and IANA{Citizen of the US of A} either, but the DVDCCA also have to show evidence that it was lawful for Johansen to agree to that contract. If the law in Norway is that reverse engineering is lawful for interoperability, then any clauses in the click-wrap agreement are null and void, and hence Johansen can be considered to have not agreed to them, regardless of what the agreement actually says.

Not only that, but before they get that far, they'd have to show some evidence that he actually agreed to the click-through license. According to the trial court, DVDCCA provided no evidence that he even did that. Instead, they pointed to his general history of "boastfulness" as circumstancial evidence of his... lawlessness, I guess?

Kinda scary to think that some silly comments you posted on the net could lead some court to assume that you had agreed to a contract, even if there's no evidence that you ever did... Actually, this is one of the problems with click-through licenses. It's so damn hard to prove that an individual actually agreed to one, that the courts feel free to guess, essentially... and put sanctions on the individual who may or may not have done so, even in the absence of real evidence that a contract was agreed to.

Curiosity....

[modemboy]

Indeed, the Supreme Court has never upheld a prior restraint, even faced with the competing interest of national security or the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial

Just to satisfy my curiosity, I know the compelling interest of national security refers to the pentagon papers ruling, but does anyone know what case they are refering to where the Supreme Court let free speech interfere with a right to a fair trial?

Re:The real issue is the trade secret status of De

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortuantely, one of the DVD license conditions is that there's no source code availability. And, there is actually a commercial Linux DVD player now - IBM ships it with certain laptop configurations. But of course that "violates" the "fair use" of those who are running NetBSD on VAX or whatever.

Programmers cannot discuss problems w/out code

[Rares Marian]

I dare you to try talking to a programmer about anything more than cosmetic features without code.

I pray for your soul also as you attempt to do that.

Re:Terrorists? Get serious.

[renehollan]

that's partly my point... the U.S. government has recently diluted the term in defining what are considered acts of terrorism under the law.

Re:The real issue is the trade secret status of De

[DickBreath]

Then, let's say, what if a properly licensed manufacturer, made a new DVD player with, oh, let's say, flashable firmware. Or other programmable features. Now geeks can circulate copies of replacement software for the Brand-X player that circumvent the nasty region coding, encrypted digital outputs, etc. This way a player could still gain popularity, although not because they officially did so, but because that player does away with the restrictive features.

Yeah and....

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people would say slavery was just plain evil. It was only a matter of time before it went away. I'm sure the slaves who were treated like animals would have loved to hear "Don't worry, it will sort itself out. Right will win over Wrong."

I really wish...

[pornaholic]

that the pdf version had a password on it that wasn't released. Then I'd have to use some OTHER software (dammit, let him out already) to read it.

Re:The real issue is the trade secret status of De

[Niggle]

The entire DVD industry, through the DVDCCA, have devised a set of mutual licensing handcuffs that they are all to wear -- DVD player manufacturers may not manufacture DVD players with unencrypted digital outputs. They may not manufacture and sell region-free players. This keeps the ability to make fair use of DVDs out of the hands of consumers.

Well, over here in the UK, it's getting quite difficult to buy a DVD player which doesn't have a region-free mode. The models that don't allow it just didn't sell as well. So the stores tend not to stock them. So the region-free models sell even better. Etc. Etc.

America might be a special case, but from over here, it looks like the market will kill region coding far faster than any court.

there is a forum

[Technodummy]

Fairtunes.com

Fans: Fairtunes allows (music) fans to voluntarily send money, compensate or tip, any artist for their work.
Artists: Fairtunes empowers any artist to receive money online in the form of a voluntary payment. Start searching by using the box on the left or you can jump into the discussion on digital music and voluntary payments below.

So what does that make the Perl version?

[Epeeist]

"If the source code were ?compiled? to create object code, we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones would not convey ideas."

Arguably therefore the Perl version of the code (or any other scripted language) should be "Free speech".

However, since whatever language you write in gets translated to 0s and 1s eventually one could also argue that it is legal to distribute the source code, but illegal to actually execute it.

oh! I forgot

[Technodummy]

you can view a list of all the donations, some have messages to the artists, thanking them, or why they are sending the money.

Conduct vs Speech

[ickle_matt]

"anyone who infringes a copyright held by the DVDCCA or by any DVD content provider may be subject to action under the Copyright Act."

Is it my imagination, or is the court saying here that the DMCA is unneccessary and the movie industry should stop whining about DeCSS and get on with simply prosecuting anyone who makes non-fair use copies?

Haskell has been confused with design docs

[yerricde]

It is not inconceivable that in decade or two we will be able to provide a program with a design document written in prose and have it generate the program.

We're damn close. Programs can already be written as specifications of their output in functional languages that approximate algebraic notation. In fact, a particular programmer's boss once confused a program written in the Haskell language with a design document, asking "Where's the implementation?"

"Umm..." (runs a Haskell compiler) (runs the binary it produces) (correct answer appears)

"I've heard of programming computers in English on Pick OS, but this is something else."

(OT)Moderation categories

[yerricde]

Moderation question - why is no post every funny and insightful?

The comment header displays only the most recently applied moderation. Click on the comment's cid (#2510706) itself to see all different categories of moderation that moderators have applied to a comment.

Not logical at all

[mrogers]

The distinction isn't logical at all. Object code isn't a "composition of zeroes and ones" any more than source code - source code is represented as binary inside a computer, and so is Hamlet for that matter, but that doesn't stop them from being speech.

IIRC, the act of burning the American flag is protected by the First Amendment because it is a way of communicating your political beliefs to another person. Written communication is protected even though it is not literally "speech". Likewise, photographs allow people to communicate without using speech, so they too are protected. Why should object code be any different? Granted, there are very few people who can make any sense out of object code. The same is probably true of Joyce's Ulysses. But if a work is known to have some meaning, even if that meaning is obscure, it should be protected by the First Amendment.

OT [Was: This just rocks...]

[Delirium Tremens]

Hey, how do you print in bold in Java?

Re:The real issue is the trade secret status of De

[mpe]

America might be a special case, but from over here, it looks like the market will kill region coding far faster than any court.

Region 1 is a special case, since MPAA relases tend to happen there first. So you simply don't have people wanting to import DVDs of "blockbusters" they can't buy.

Re:Nice conclusion?

[way2muchsense]

That means the Mona Lisa is a collection of paint smears, and that Beethoven's 5th Symphony ceases to be an artistic work once the orchestra begins playing. Preposterous.

UNIX representation of a coup de'etat

[way2muchsense]

1,$s/ag/gwb/g

Cool... Can this apply to patented algorithms?

[JohnDenver]

"That the source code is capable of such compilation, however, does not destroy the expressive nature of the source code itself. "

It seems to me that if code is considered speech inasmuch as a standard mathematical notation, does this mean I can implement patented algorithms and distribute its source code as long as it is not converted into a device (compiled)?

Code of Patented Algorithm == Free Speech???
Compiled Code of Patented Algorithm == Patent Violation???

What do you guys think?

Re:Hip Hip Horay! (and "Facts")

[gorilla]

There isn't really any mathematical difference between the master key and a session key encrypted with that master key, as one can be transformed to the other. That's why, after the session key is know for a disk, it's possible to establish what the other master keys are.

I think...

[Godwin O'Hitler]

...I'll settle for limiting free speech to source code.

The courts have got this far so please don't start confusing them. And second I wouldn't particularly worry about being banned from posting in Etruscan as long as I could still post in English, French, Icelandic, Tagalog...

Nope, please don't cloud the issue.

A curse on the Bono family

[yerricde]

I would think that you can use this citation to argue that copyrights, while supposed to be limited in scope, are now becoming de facto limitless, and thus are not 'for limited times'

No. The citation says that unlike copyrights, trade secrets are perpetual. However, this ignores that every 20 years, Disney employees contribute upwards of US$6 million to congressional re-election campaigns to get 20 more years of copyright monopoly. See also the Wikipedia article about the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. In fact, according to one interpretation of the Constitution, a billion years plus two days would be considered sufficiently "limited times."

A curse on the Bono family for being so dang greedy.

A few lines of assembler

[yerricde]

Um, a few lines of assembler

You don't say "a few lines of compiler," do you? Say "a few lines of assembly language."

do practically nothing

Four lines of 6502 assembly language can detect whether a program runs on NESticle or on Nintendo hardware:

ppustatus = $2002 ;bit 7 of this register is vblank status

nestc_detect:
bit $2002 ;NES turns on bit 7 at vblank
bpl nestc_detect ;wait until bit 7 is 1
bit $2002 ;NES turns bit 7 off after any $2002 read
bmi is_nesticle ;but NESticle waits until the end of vblank
; things to do on a real NES
is_nesticle:
; things to do on a poorly emulated NES

To see how this works, visit my Everything 2 writeup about NESticle.

although I invite you to memorize the 700+ instructions in the PIII instruction set

Everyday asm programming (i.e. not writing the lowest level of kernel VM code) needs only about 50 instructions per problem domain (intmath, fpumath, mmx/sse, etc), and that's on a CISC chip. RISC instruction sets have a much smaller and much more orthogonal instruction set. For a computer architecture class at Rose-Hulman, I once designed and implemented a 16-bit RISC machine with a set of 15 instructions (8 arithmetic, 4 control, 3 data movement) based loosely on the MIPS architecture. But then I learned how ARM7TDMI's Thumb instruction set used many of the tricks I thought I invented.

Re:Hip Hip Horay! (and "Facts")

[glitch!]

Hmm. (thinking it over) I guess I have to agree with that. That wouldn't be the case if they were using an asymmetric cypher (eg, public key), but I doubt the DVD people would have even considered anything that sophisticated. Good catch.

Click-through agreement restricting REing

[yerricde]

the DVDCCA also have to show evidence that it was lawful for Johansen to agree to that contract. If the law in Norway is that reverse engineering is lawful for interoperability, then any clauses in the click-wrap agreement are null and void

I've seen a EULA that states, in short: You may not copy, modify, etc. this software, except to install this software on one computer or strictly for backup purposes. In addition:

1. You may not reverse-engineer the Software in any way.
2. You may not export the Software to Afghanistan, Cuba, Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, or Syria.
3. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY ON THIS SOFTWARE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.
4. THE AUTHOR SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES INCURRED AS A RESULT OF USE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

If the law of your jurisdiction does not permit enforcing the above four terms, this agreement is NULL AND VOID, AND YOU MAY NOT USE OR OTHERWISE ACCESS THE SOFTWARE.

Attorneys cover their client's @$$es because their clients pay them to.

I see Windows XP's product authentication mechanism as a step toward eliminating shrinkwrap and click-through licensing in favor of actual contracts that users have to sign with a Digital ID.

Re:Click-through agreement restricting REing

[T. Bombadil]

My girlfriend/wife/parent could have installed the software and agreed to the clickwrap license, but that doesn't mean that i do just because i sit down at that computer and start using it.

I have yet to see a clickwrap license that says only the clicker of this license may be allowed access to the machine this software will reside on.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Re:Click-through agreement restricting REing

[yerricde]

I have yet to see a clickwrap license that says only the clicker of this license may be allowed access to the machine this software will reside on.

I have seen something to this effect a few times: "You may not permit other persons to use or otherwise access the Software except under the terms of this License." This means that if you RE the software, the DVDCCA could sue your girlfriend/wife/parent.

Expressive communication and copyright

[edp]

If source code is expressive communication and object code is not, I wonder what the implications for copyright of executables are? If executables are not expressions of their authors, they shouldn't be considered creative works entitled to copyright protection like novels or art. They would be mere machines. As such, patents could protect parts of them, but only the novel inventions, a more limited protection than copyright.

Campaign finance reform is another way

[arete]

We have, of course, a chicken and egg problem, but the way to attack the RIAA problem is that they shouldn't be so ABLE to buy congressmen - and the way to stop that is real finance reform.

The way to do THAT is to vote out the people who won't vote for it, and not be distracted by shorter term issues.

Re:Good ruling: Trade Secret vs Copyright Protecti

[dbretton]

You are 100% correct. The CTSA, however, is an attempt to bind everyone under a form of an "NDA", in a way. If you are discussing cryptography, and happen to discuss that a particular type of decryptographic (word? God, I love English!) process will subvert a particular type of proprietary encryption, then I may be able to apply the CTSA to prevent you from discussing it!

Glad to see this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how the C source code is any different than the othe variations that were created (such as my favorite, the prime number that can be converted into a gzip that contains the source, etc).. Would they have outlawed something like this?: Take a C programming book, since it would contain the appropriate characters.. Now go through random pages and find the instances of every character from the DeCSS source code.. now write down the position in the book from where they are located (page number, line number, etc). now you have this map of characters and words that you could distribute that would essentially allow anyone that had that book the ability to compile a copy of DeCSS.. would they go so far as to make something like that illegal? I really fail to see how the C source is any different than something like that.. Just because the C can be easily compiled and read as something that looks like a circumvention device doesnt make it any different than another form..