2600 Drops DeCSS Appeal

Slashdot Chaplain writes "At the 2600 site, you can see today's details about why 2600 is withdrawing from taking their suit to the Supreme Court." So let's recap the case: 2600 published the DeCSS utility on their website. The movie studios filed suit, and the EFF agreed to assist 2600 with their case. 2600 lost the case in District Court, receiving a tongue-lashing from Judge Kaplan, which ordered them not to post or even link to DeCSS. 2600 appealed. They lost. They attempted to have their case heard again, by the full Appeals court rather than a three-judge panel, and were rejected. And although they have the option of appealing to the Supreme Court, they are saying today that they will not: so Judge Kaplan's decision stands. The case in California is still ongoing. No doubt this will be discussed at H2K2 next week.

Comments

Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court

[Anonymous Coward]

If your case is relatively weak (and you feel you may lose), it is often better to not take your case to the last level, else a national precedent is set. Once this happens, it's often difficult to have it reversed.

So, by not appealing, they leave the door open to a future (stronger) case to set the law straight.

It's a matter of picking your battles wisely. Give up this one battle, but not the war.

Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court

[Jay Carlson]

As Phil Agre pointed out, Bush seems to be headed for a dispute with the Constitution itself. Bush is quoted in the Washington Post (skip to the last paragraph):

Bush said the ruling "points up the fact that we need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."

Which seems in contradiction to Article VI.3 of the US Constitution:

Clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Interesting.

As you'd expect from that, the Presidential Oath or Affirmation in Article II.1.8 is "merely"

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

with no "so help me God" or anything like that...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What is it that we are buying?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an old subject, but I have yet to get a really valid answer to the question: What are you buying when you buy a DVD (or CD or tape for that matter).

By checking the price tag, you can quickly acertain that you aren't buying just the media.

We've all been reminded a million times that we don't own the content.

The whole deCSS issue has elliminated the possibility of buying the right to watch or listen to the content since we can't legally do this on our own. Note: I realize that you can't simply look at a CD and hear the music on it, but the technology required to listen to the music on the CD isn't illegal to post on the internet.

Okay... so maybe we're buying the right (if you can call it that) to consume the content - but only providing that certain conditions are met - like we've bought some software from a company approved to make it. Well, not really, because if we owned the right to consume the content, we shouldn't have to pay full price for a replacement if we lose or accidentally destroy our DVD or CD or whatever.

So we're buying something that we don't own. Right. My favorite way to spend money.

By the way, where can I find the deCSS stuff now?

This is such a bummer

[H1r0Pr0tag0n1st]

This is why instead of changing the "under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance they should change the last line to "liberty and justice for those who can afford it." Support 2600 and the EFF or the First amendment will be re-written by big corporations.

Re:This is such a bummer

[marxmarv]

Jello Biafra had it too right when he quoth "One nation under God... or else."

-jhp

EFF took the case even without a posterchild

[geekotourist]

I think its another point of evidence that the EFF goes on principle, not popularity. When you're dealing with judges who are more used to typewriters and record players, you'd rather have defendants that the judges won't start off being biased against. But its unlikely the RIAA / MPAA will give them one, and the EFF tried hard with what they had. Thanks to both the EFF and 2600 for both fighting this fight and for knowing that this wasn't the one to take to the SCOTUS.

I'll bet that when the XXAA starts suing individuals, they'll have done background checks to ensure the defendants are as unsympathetic as possible.