Slashdot Mirror
2600 Appeal Rejected
blankmange writes "Wired is reporting that 2600's appeal has been rejected by a federal appeals court. "The Second Circuit Court of Appeals said in a one-line ruling that it was not going to revisit an earlier decision in which 2600 was found to be unlawfully distributing a DVD-descrambling utility. In January 2000, eight movie studios sued the legendary hacker quarterly for posting the DeCSS.exe utility, which decodes DVDs and allows them to be viewed on a Linux computer." The magazine now has 90 days to file a Supreme Court appeal." The Appeals court did not have to take the case, and they didn't. 2600 can appeal to the Supreme Court, but they don't have to take the case either - it's looking more and more as though Kaplan's ruling will stand.
The asshole at least owed us more than one line.
What a fucking prick.
Its all a crock of shit. The judges are owned by special interests. They don't represent the constitution or anything other than the new masters views.
A few more fucks to add to my list of people who should have been in the WTC instead of the 10,000 good, decent people who actually died.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Phone phreaking is illegal, tampering with your odometer is illegal, creating and sending virusi is illegal.
Don't you people think that stealing from the DVD playback machine makers' is also illegal?
The Appeals Court thinks so.
I have been pwned because my
what difference does it make to them if someone watches their DVDs on a computer with Linux installed or Windoze, or any other stinkin OS!!!
What a non-news article. I've had more meat at a PETA convention.
is a fucking idi0t.
The financial times of London has a fantastic story [ft.com] talking about how this means a heavy-handed expansion of the DMCA powers. Bascially, it all comes down to power, and who is going what to whom. It [gro.se]sounds like things are going to get really ugly. 2600.org didn't even know what to expect.
Once highly skilled and educated people start flowing out of the country, it'll make powers-that-be really nervous about future.
Who cares, it's POS for a nation anyway...
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
ok kids, just for review, THIS is legal to write:
4 2;if((@a=unqT ="C*",_)[20]&48){D=89;_=unqb24,qT,@5 )&(Q>>1 2^Q>>4^Q/8^Q))<<17,O=O>>8^(E& ; F=(S=O>>14&7^O)= R^=11 0&(S=(unqT,"\xb\ntd\xbz\x14d")[_/16%8]);E@ z=(64,72,G^=12*(U-2?0:S&17)),H^=_%64?12 : ,@z)[_%8]}(16..271))[_]^((D>>=8a [128..$#a]}print+qT,@a}';s/[D -HO-U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eval
" Hrmm...firebombs. MPAA. Judge Kaplan's house... "
And THIS is not:
#!/usr/bin/perl
s''$/=\2048;while(<>){G=29;R=1
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV , b25,_;H=73;O=$b[4]<<9
|256|$b[3];Q=Q>>8^(P=(E=25
^S*8^S<<6))<<9,_=(map{U=_%16orE^
^=(72,
)+=P+(~F&E))for@
Really puts things in perspective, huh?
No. It's in the main part a discussion of personal legal risk, in the context of someone urging me to personally take action similar to the DMCA case which 2600 has done (on-topic!). I could do it (on-topic!), in a censorware context . And I am quite worried about what will happen to me if I do (on-topic! - wow, given this legal appeal failure, is it on-topic!). That's very far from "nothing more".
For background, please read about programmers having been sued for anticensorware work, and even going to jail over the DMCA.
That's not "personal" at all, except in the sense that I don't personally want to go to jail, or get sued. Am I wrong for that? (or is it off-topic?).
That's not what I said. Quote:
Which part of this do you disagree, purely as a statement of fact? Was Michael Sims correct in the domain hijacking of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) ? Am I wrong to worry about the potential for him to abuse his power as a Slashdot editor? I am indeed concerned about personal smears, because such attacks, even from Slashdot comments, ended up as DeCSS court evidence! Is this inaccurate? Is this false? Is this even off-topic for this thread, given that it's about the court decision in the 2600 DeCSS case against the DMCA?
I realize people say these Slashdot comments lessen me. What can I tell you? It's very frustrating to contemplate the potential legal consequences of doing something to fight the DMCA. It's one thing to post rah-rah comments in a discussion thread. But when one sits down to real consideration of what's involved, that's far, far, more serious.
Look, you don't have to like me. You don't have to believe that I'm a pleasant person. But I would ask you to respect the severe legal and personal consequences involved in any action against the DMCA.