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.

Comments

Re:Is this any surprise?

[eyegor]

My car is capable of going over a hundred miles an hour. I can also use it to run over hapless pedestrians. Yet I do neither (at least not on purpose)

I own guns. I'm capable of all sorts of mischief. I choose not to.

I own a baseball bat. I don't attack people with it. Sometimes I even hit baseballs with it.

Decss is a nice tool that I can use to store my favorite DVD on my laptop and watch it when I'm on travel without dragging a bunch of extra stuff around. I don't steal movies on DVD... I certainly could, I chose not to.

Just because you can use a tool that has a legitmate purpose to break the law doesn't mean you will do so.

Plus, who has time to download some sucky dvd rip anyway? Life's too short, I'd rather plunk down the $20 or so and have a nice library. It's retarded to spend all that time stealing a movie then pay big bucks for a writable DVD.

Re:2600 cant get no respect

[Seth Finkelstein]

The "image" battle was a problem way before the appeal level. In the original ruling, the court said:

In the final analysis, the dispute between these parties is simply put if not necessarily simply resolved.

Plaintiffs have invested huge sums over the years in producing motion pictures in reliance upon a legal framework that, through the law of copyright, has ensured that they will have the exclusive right to copy and distribute those motion pictures for economic gain. They contend that the advent of new technology should not alter this long established structure.

Defendants, on the other hand, are adherents of a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located.

Judge Kaplan wasn't exactly shy about his views, no sirreee bob ...

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

The court is wrong on many counts

[smiff]

I have to question the first appeals court's competence in this case. They claimed that fair use remained intact because someone could use a video camera to copy part of a DVD. The court failed to realize that the image quality would be horrible, unless you used a tool to adjust the TV's frame rate. Such a tool would circumvent Macrovision. In other words, the court's recommended solution would require violating the exact same law!

Outlawing DeCSS today, would be like outlawing the photocopier in the 1970's, or outlawing home movie projectors at the turn of the 19th/20th century.

I am very disappointed that the court never addressed whether or not congress had the power to enact the anti-device provision in the first place. Forty-six law professors who specialize in intellectual property, claim that the anti-device provision is exactly the sort of thing that the constitution sought to avoid. The appeals court

1. Misinterpreted the brief as only applying to time limits, and
2. claimed that they did not have to rule on it because it was only mentioned in a footnote on the plantiff's appeal.

I am further disturbed by the court's ban on electronic footnotes. I still have the right to put a URL in a print publication, but if I put it on a web site, I can be thrown in jail. What's so special about the internet that my free speech rights don't apply?

Finally, the appeals court's prophecy that the internet will result in the viral spreading of movies and destruction of the movie industry is without merit. These predictions have been made with every single advancement in media technology, and with every single advancement they have been proven wrong. Even at the height of Napster, with a slumping economy, the record companies were making more money than the did before Napster started.

With this court ruling, it is illegal to make an open source DVD player. And it is impracticle for ordinary citizens to make their own improvements to a closed source DVD player. Why can't churches distribute a script that only plays an edited version of rated R movies? Answer: because I can't make a DVD player that supports this feature. This clearly does the exact opposite of promoting usefulness in the arts and sciences.

I live in a country where I have a constitutional right to publish directions on building a nuclear bomb, or publish a book on how to kill someone and get away with it. But I can be thrown in jail for telling someone how to make a tool that helps blind people read electronic books.

Re:Neither 2600 nor the EFF have skin in this game

[rusty0101]

In contrast let's face it, neither 2600 nor EFF are threatened with nonexistence should they lose this case.

While this is not strictly about whether or not 2600, or EFF's existance is threatened, there is a prospective problem that has been raised by the case and the judgement.

The original story that 2600 carried was about how the author of a piece of software was being hassled by the legal system in his country. As the author had made public the software he had created, 2600 collected copies of the software and source code, and made them available on their website. Subsequently 2600 was enjoined through the courts by the MPAA to pull the software and source code from their web site. At that time 2600 published links to other web sites where the software was posted. These links were provided by readers of 2600 for the most part. In some cases the links were directly to the software, in other cases the links were to web pages where the software could be found. The appeal that has been lost at this time is 2600's appeal to be able to continue the practice of linking to other people's web sites with respect to the DeCSS software. After the Kaplan ruling 2600 posted a copy of the ruling, and advised readers that while they were not able to provide links to sites hosting DeCSS information, any interested parties could easily call find hundreds of such sites by typing DeCSS into the "GoTO" search engine, which is hosted by Disney, one of the petitioners in the case. So the judgement can be interpreted to read that the petitioners can tell you where to find this software, but the defendent is not allowed the same privledge.

I am aware that a lot of people are commenting that the DeCSS.exe program is a Windows program, so obviously it has nothing to do with Linux. In any effort to put together a tool for Linux, the author of parts of that tool, or package, needs to verify that the algorythims work. At the time the developer of DeCSS came up with the code that was ready to be tested, there was no way to read a DVD disk in Linux. (I may be wrong here, however this has been my interpretation of the arguments presented.) At the same time, DVD disks could be accessed in the Windows environment. The author did the logical thing, he compiled his algorythems into a Windows executable, with the necessary front end, and tested. It is this software that has been made available, and is found in the DeCSS.exe package.

On top of that, I have a hard time believing that the program would not run under Wine without any re-compiling, though I have not tested it.

The potential big problem this presents for the press is that Kaplan has set the precedent that if some media conglomerant decides that a story is detrimental to their situation, they can petition the courts to tell the periodical hosting that story how to present the relevant parts of the story. Theoretically if someone on /. finds out that there is a picture of one of the heads of the MPAA in a comprimizing situation, the MPAA can petition the courts to have /. rephrase the story so that it could read there is a picture of Mr. V in some compromising situation out on the internet now. Go to Google and serach for "mr. v compromising". and point back to the 2600 case as the precedent, and it will have been upheald by the Supreme Court.

Then again, IANAL, I could be wrong.

-Rusty

Re:The Librarian of Congress

[Seth Finkelstein]

This, like many things you post about, has nothing to do with censorware.

That is incorrect. The original question concerned. Librarian of Congress exemptions. I am quite familiar with that topic, having played a role in establishing one of the only two DMCA exemptions granted. Those two exemptions were for obsoleteness and for censorware. I then quoted part of the actual text of the exemption to demonstrate how narrow was the exemption granted. I suppose I could have quoted the text for the obsoleteness exemption, but given a choice, why not use the relevant topic dear to my heart?

So you are mistaken, it was written in direct and accurate response to the original poster's question.

Of course, I talk about censorware a great deal. I've done much of the pioneering work on that topic. And if I may say so, I'm expert about it and familiar with the relevant legal issues surrounding it. And these legal issues strongly connect with the DMCA, per above.

I usually don't reply to personal attacks in these threads. But since you're not a troll, and it is arguably on-topic, I'll make an exception here.

Regarding going up against the DMCA myself, well, just how eager would you be to take legal risk in my place, given that Michael Sims has done actions such as What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) ? That's an extremely serious question. This isn't a game. It's not a silly flame-war. Note what this story is about - 2600 has lost at every LEGAL level, been outright flamed by the judge in the original case decision, and DeCSS cases have even had comments from Slashdot postings used against them. The smears you mention, have been against me. If I take too much legal risk, as sure as the other side has lawyers, it's all going to be in their court evidence. So I feel heavily constrained as to what I can do to fight the DMCA, in large part because I have to worry about a Slashdot editor who has already shown he's extremely willing to abuse power for revenge.

Maybe I'll get modded down for this, but it's late, and I'm tired. It's not a nice topic. But going to jail over the DMCA is far worse. And I didn't take any vow of silence about Michael Sims.