Slashdot Mirror


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.

149 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. DeCSS by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know what the Canadian stance is on the DeCSS issue?

    I haven't heard anything relating to it, except for the taxes on CD-Rs, DVDs, and VHS tapes ... and I think they had a tax on hard drives, too, not sure.

    1. Re:DeCSS by Patrick13 · · Score: 2

      if canada is so great why do they have to make their stupid coins look the same size and shape as ours?

      --
      ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
    2. Re:DeCSS by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      no you're right, it wasn't justified, but it SHOULD have been expected, and you should expect it again.

      --
      Jeremy
    3. Re:DeCSS by schon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Does anyone know what the Canadian stance is on the DeCSS issue?

      As of right now, there is nothing "official" about it.

      The Canadian Copyright board is considering legislation similar to the DMCA, and (for the past year, give or take) has issued a request for public comments, and held public hearings about what should or shouldn't be included in such legislation.

      The RFC elicted over 600 comments, all of which were published at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp00007e.html. A (very informative) summary of these responses is available at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp00842e.html (Interesting to note that our government considers copyright infringement and "piracy" to be two different things.)

      I attented the last day of hearings, held in Edmonton, and I must say that things looked hopeful. There was one guy, who owned a publishing house, who was pro-playback protection, and everyone else (approx 50 or so, including a police officer, teachers, librarians, and even the president of a crypto company) was opposed.

    4. Re:DeCSS by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      The USA gets ALONG with it's neighbors. We get along with Canada, we get along with Mexico, we get along with the entire South America.

      I agree. I'm an American and have lived the last 6+ years in Mexico. I've never been called anything worse than "amigo americano." I've traveled to Ecuador and Colombia--in both cases they were THRILLED that I was visiting their country and wanted to make sure I was having a positive trip and thought well of their countries. Everyone I was introduced to would ask, "What do you think of Colombia?"

      North and South America generally gets along. It's the "Old Continent" and basicaly the "other" hemisphere that is FUBAR. We've only solved their "world" wars twice and are involved around the world so that WE don't have to finish another war that someone else starts in a continent thousands of miles away.

      Perhaps we'll stop sticking our nose in "other's" business when they give some feeble demonstration that they won't kill each other as soon as we withdrawl...

    5. Re:DeCSS by T.Hobbes · · Score: 2

      The canadian version of the DMCA is still being worked out, so for the time being having DeCSS on a .ca is still legal. Considering the nature of the internet, the legislation I would really be concerned about would be international DMCA clone.

    6. Re:DeCSS by cmallinson · · Score: 1

      It's hard enough teaching the American tourists how to convert kilometres to miles. We don't want to have to re-teach them how to count spare change as well.

    7. Re:DeCSS by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Um right. Multiplication by a decimal point is just as easy as adding. *eyeroll*

      Yeah you really proved that Americans are stupid.

    8. Re:DeCSS by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      No, we had NO reason to expect it. I suppose our gov't could have expected an attack on a MILITARY target, but how could we (the civillians) see that coming? How could the gov't see that we'd be attacked in such an awful way?

      It's easy to oversimplify and say 'Oh, America pokes it's nose in other people's business.' Let me ask you something, if Pakistan and India exchanged nuclear fire, would you want us to 'poke our heads in' or not?

      Let's put things into perspective; America is big. America's economy touches everyone else's. Imagine what'd happen, for example, if suddenly we couldn't get oil. Gee, can you see uber-depression? Can you imagine the economic disaster that would cause in other countries?

      It's silly to say 'Oh, America is just looking for trouble.' Yah, whatever. It's easy to hate us because we're so diverse and the reasons create themselves. 'America had 2 shootings in schools. It must mean that all Americans are gun toating freaks!"

      Grow up. If you're oversimplifying and stereotyping, you're not thinking.

    9. Re:DeCSS by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      where in mexico are you living? i've seriously considered taking my family there for a few years, but have concerns about: 1. establishing income (finding even IT work that will allow you to work remotely seems challenging), and 2. renting my current house (my wife would never let us sell it). is there IT work there for americans?

    10. Re:DeCSS by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      where in mexico are you living?

      Monterrey. About 5 hours south of San Antonio.

      1. establishing income (finding even IT work that will allow you to work remotely seems challenging), is there IT work there for americans?

      If you speak Spanish, you can generally find work. Americans are in demand because it seems having an American on-board gives the company a certain prestige--and the fact that you speak fluent English is a big plus for most companies.

      Things have probably cooled down since the recession began so it may be harder to find work these days.

      You won't earn much money unless you get some kind of upper management position. If you are the IT Director of an entire bank you'll earn good money, but if you are a network administrator for that same bank you won't do so well. There's a huge difference between what "most" of the people (IT and not) make and what the upper few people make.

      Back in 1996-1999 I worked as a software engineer at a Mexican company down here. When I could have been making $50k-$90k in the States, I was making about $18k here in Mexico. For obvious reasons, in 1999 I quit and now I do independent consulting--most of which I do for American companies. I really don't do much business with Mexican companies, I just happen to live in Mexico because my wife is Mexican and she isn't ready to move to the States yet.

      As for interesting work, that may also be a problem. Most of the IT work is rather cut-and-dry business apps. Accounting systems, other applications running a business. Truly cool and interesting development projects are less common here than in the United States, I'd say.

    11. Re:DeCSS by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Um right. And how are we gonna do that exactly? We're not the ones itching to push the button.

  2. Definition... by wo1verin3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Laws don't define what is made legal....
    Money does.

  3. Don't Blame 2600 by waldoj · · Score: 5, Informative

    I hope that nobody blames 2600 Magazine for their decision not to appeal. It's plain that now is not the time for such appeals, particularly given how strongly that they've been rebuffed thus far. Perhaps most importantly, Emmanuel lacks the funds (I assume) to take a case to the Supreme Court. Such things involve a tremendous amount of money.

    Given the recent 2600-related news (recall that Ford dropped the suit against them over FuckGeneralMotors.com last week), I should point out that 2600 Magazine relies on merchandise sales and magazine subscriptions to stay afloat. For those that haven't heard of 2600 Magazine, I recommend that you check it out. I've subscribed since the early '90s, though it's been published continuously (every quarter) for over a decade now. Whether you want to support 2600's legal work or you'd simply like to keep current on hacker news and culture, I recommend that you subscribe.

    -Waldo Jaquith

    1. Re:Don't Blame 2600 by jethro200 · · Score: 1

      it was obviously a good choice on the part of 2600 to not continue to the supreme court. not only could it have cost them a great deal of money, possibly even enough to have forced them into bacnkruptcy; but if it had been heard, and the supreme court ruled against 2600, that would dramaticly decrease the chances of getting another, stonger case heard later.

    2. Re:Don't Blame 2600 by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      Like post. Newsletter?

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    3. Re:Don't Blame 2600 by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      Such things involve a tremendous amount of money.

      Very true. However, IIRC, the EFF was handling most of their legal costs.

      Whether you want to support 2600's legal work or you'd simply like to keep current on hacker news and culture, I recommend that you subscribe.

      I'd like to second that; 2600 is a rare mag that dares to touch subjects that have gotten others in legal hot water (i.e. H-card decrypting, inner workings of Staples Stores, etc). In the present climate of corporate controlled media, 2600 is independently owned and operated, it even doesn't accept advertising (aside from classified ads at the back of the issues).It is $5 US well spent.

      And no, I don't work for them... :)

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    4. Re:Don't Blame 2600 by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      " You don't take a case to the SCOTUS unless you know its damn good. Test cases are especially straightforward usually."

      I think in this case it's got less to do with the strength of the case then the makeup of the court. There is no way in hell a republican dominated supreme court will rule in favor 2600.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    5. Re:Don't Blame 2600 by Comen · · Score: 1

      Hmmm I agree that the mag is a good read, I have only read maybe 5 issues though, so I cant say but what I have read and that was some time ago.
      Used to have a guy that worked with me work for them on the side. So got some mags a T shirt etc... I would order it for sure only thing is it makes me alittle nervous, in todays atmosphere I am waiting for hacking to get more and more looked into and dont want to give anyone a reason to come stiffing around my PC or internet transactions.
      The mag is not a bad as it sounds, teh hacking quarterly or whater dont sound good to people who dont uderstand what the mag is about they just think you are doing all the bad things they here about no the news.

    6. Re:Don't Blame 2600 by silance · · Score: 1, Informative

      2600 is taking care of the work that everyone should be apart of. Buy a friggin' subscription, click through and buy a shirt (I have four!) give them the capital needed to fight the good fight!!! Not many people have the mature connection with EFF to carry out such rebellion against unjust US laws. Separately we can do very little; yet united we can change the world!!!

    7. Re:Don't Blame 2600 by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      There is no way in hell a republican dominated supreme court will rule in favor 2600.

      It is truly a shame that the highest court in the land is known to decide cases based on political tenets rather than on the actual intent of law and the promotion of the interest and welfare of the public.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    8. Re:Don't Blame 2600 by Malcontent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is a shame but at least now it's out in the open. There can be no further pretext that the supreme court is somehow interested in the greater welfare of the american public or acts as a check or balance on the power of the executive branch. This court annointed George Bush and has a vested interest in making sure that his policies and wishes get approved. I feel sorry for any registered democrat who has to go before this court they are doomed before the case even starts.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    9. Re:Don't Blame 2600 by Pooua · · Score: 1
      Perhaps most importantly, Emmanuel lacks the funds (I assume) to take a case to the Supreme Court. Such things involve a tremendous amount of money.

      I know a group that spent over $100k over several years getting a case to the US Supreme Court. I don't know how much it cost once actually at the Court's front door, but I do know that it takes a while to pay off past debt.

      For those that haven't heard of 2600 Magazine, I recommend that you check it out. I've subscribed since the early '90s, though it's been published continuously (every quarter) for over a decade now.

      2600 is the same group that showed (and many members used) techniques to make free phone calls and hack into corporate networks. I also had a friend who was closely associated with 2600, because (he said) they were the only people with the guts actually to do the stuff they talk about (though he complained that the local group was a bunch of wimpy children). His idea of fun was taking over the computer of some university student writing out his term paper and making random edits to the paper as the student typed it. He also showed me lists used by 2600 (and others) targeting people for harassment, listing their phone numbers and specific things to say or do to annoy them, and why.

      My points in mentioning all this is:

      1) It is completely against the spirit of 2600 to pay for information, so no one should ever subscribe to their magazine. Instead, to keep with the spirit of 2600, interested parties should make illegal copies of 2600 magazine, and really clever techniques should be published.

      2) 2600 demonstrates that many computer-adept individuals are anti-social hoodlums deserving of the contempt of the general public, to say nothing of arrest and imprisonment. I liken them to Whole Earth's "Monkeywrench Gang" and other local terrorists and hell-raisers.

      Whether you want to support 2600's legal work or you'd simply like to keep current on hacker news and culture, I recommend that you subscribe.

      I can always appreciate a fine hack, even if I think the hacker should be shot.

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    10. Re:Don't Blame 2600 by Derkec · · Score: 2
      The court had a bunch to do with his being declared president, but let's face it. There was a tie, and the random chance in florida fell his way. Now, even if the court was largely conservative and supported a conservative canidate, which is debateable, why does that then decide all their decisions? Several of their recent death penalty decisions have been more liberal than expected (not liberal enough for me). The is no real evidence that they cater to the president's every whim.

      Why do they have a vested interest in him? They keep their jobs and can do as they please whether he is a success or not. You might argue that if he succeeds he is more likely to appoint more conservative judges to the court and so the most conservative factions might help him out. However, this court has been very professional and is very evenly divided. It's hard to imagine them making decisions in order to help out a member of the executive branch. The court considers itself to be above such political games. As a registered Democrat, I would have no problem bringing a solid case to this court.

      Another point. The supreme court was never about doing what was neccassarily best for America. That's not what they are there for. They are there for the purpose of understanding and interpretting the Constitution and applying constituational law. Fair use, for instance, is probably in the public interest but does not occupy a prominent position in the Constituation. Therefore, taking a fair use case to the high court would be a waste of breath. One would have to make an arguement along the lines of 1st amendment rights or something more creative.

  4. The World? by mongoks · · Score: 2, Insightful
    People the world over know all about the DMCA and are committed to overturning it.

    People who read /. know all about the DMCA. Outside of that, I don't think anyone cares. Windows users buy their DVD-ROM's and WinDVD comes with so they are happy and it doesn't affect them.

    1. Re:The World? by mongoks · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong but the DMCA is a U.S. law and this trial is being held in the U.S.

    2. Re:The World? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      " People who read /. know all about the DMCA. Outside of that, I don't think anyone cares."

      *cough* Sklyarov *cough*

    3. Re:The World? by Kwikymart · · Score: 1

      I, a Canadian as well, care. It seems all too often that whenever the US does something, Canada will do something drastic. These actions are usually strong, either for or against the movement in question.

      Regardless, what the US does will affect us in the long run. This may be good or it may be bad. Nobody knows. The US is a strong economic power whether we like them or not, and pretty much our only direct neighbour. It would be quite dumb to say that they do not influence us at least somewhat.

      --

      Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
    4. Re:The World? by packeteer · · Score: 1

      ou have a good point... think of NAFTA... its an example of how Canada and The US are becoming more and more intertwined...

      i live in washington state so i have gone to cananda more than a few times and let me tell any of you who dont go there much... its almost the same country... nothing feels different when you go there... the money is a different color and a few thing you can notice but cananda and the us are VERY similar... which means the SAME companies that are buying America are buying Canada... you can thank NAFTA for that...

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    5. Re:The World? by severed · · Score: 1

      Try Quebec. It starts to feel real different, real fast :-)

      --

      HaXXXor.com - Naked Chicks Teach You How To Ha

    6. Re:The World? by orcrist · · Score: 1

      Try Quebec. It starts to feel real different, real fast :-)

      You've got to look at the similarities, not the differences: Then you'll see the same obnoxious "me and my language first" attitude that the U.S. Americans have, except it's in French ;-)

      Actually, in that regard it's closer to the U.S. than the rest of Canada!

      -chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    7. Re:The World? by GutBomb · · Score: 2

      and since the law (seemingly to them) does not effect them because they have no interest in watching dvd's in linux and are haoppy paying $20 for a silver platter with 1 good song (if that) on it, they really won't care because it's not thier constitutional rights being sodomized.

  5. decision by zootread · · Score: 1

    I think they're making the right decision here. Losing in the Supreme Court would not be good.

    --
    Zoot!
  6. Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The justices will get worse, not better for this type of case if they are appointed by Bush. Conservative president = conservative judicial nominees.

      I still agree with 2600's decision, however. Their history as a hacker magazine instantly prejudices most judges against them. I think they would be hard pressed to win *any* case in front of the Supreme Court, regardless of the composition of the court.

    2. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by John+Miles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The justices will get worse, not better for this type of case if they are appointed by Bush. Conservative president = conservative judicial nominees.

      Not necessarily. A conservative judicial nominee is more likely to be a strict constructionist, one who interprets the Constitution without an (overt) activist agenda. Such a jurist would be more likely to take a dim view of Hollywood's lawmaking-by-payola activities.

      A Democratic judicial nomination would be more likely to be made at the behest of the sort of Hollywood interest groups that more or less constantly brown-nose Democratic lawmakers. Remember that the DMCA happened on Clinton's watch.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    3. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by jtharpla · · Score: 1

      I disagree...watch the People vs. Larry Flynt and then explain to me how someone's background automatically prejudices the Supreme Court.

    4. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      Except that Bush has stated publicly that he will only appoint judges that fail to uphold the first amendment (*), so I wouldn't count on his appointees being strict constitutionalists.

      * - Okay, he didn't say it in those terms, but he did say he would only appoint judges who believe belief in God is a neccessary part of being a member of American culture, which amounts to the same thing.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    5. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by BitterOak · · Score: 2
      That's right. A good strategy in this case might be to post DeCSS code on a website in a difference Circuit, one whose judges are more favorable to First Amendment issues. (Possibly the Ninth?) Then if they decide differently than the 2nd Circuit, the Supreme Court is almost sure to hear the case.

      So, any Californians want to give it a try?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    6. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 2, Funny
      in a differen[t] Circuit, one whose judges are more favorable to First Amendment issues. (Possibly the Ninth?)

      Oh, yes, except that DeCSS might be used to unencrypt the word "God," and so the Ninth Circuit will find it prima facie unconstitutional.

      --
      taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    7. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      Not necessarily. A conservative judicial nominee is more likely to be a strict constructionist, one who interprets the Constitution without an (overt) activist agenda. Such a jurist would be more likely to take a dim view of Hollywood's lawmaking-by-payola activities.

      Why? There's nothing unconstitutional about lawmaking-by-payola. The DMCA will never be overturned by the Supreme Court, because it is not unconstitutional. Despite what many slashdotters may be led to believe Bad Law != Unconstitutional Law. At best the DMCA will be narrowly constructed to allow circumvention in certain fair use situations.

    8. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by Jay+Carlson · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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...
    9. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by jhoffoss · · Score: 2

      ..But you can rest easy! Just remember that any Supreme Court appointee must be approved by both houses of congress.

      Well, why aren't you resting yet? Oh yeah...that's why.

      --
      Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
    10. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by chrylis · · Score: 1

      To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; (U.S. Constitution, article I)

      If the DMCA has the basic effect of inhibiting this progress, it is unconstitutional. Any question of this has been settled with the watermarking fiasco.

    11. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by Glytch · · Score: 2

      Someone once said that religious oaths of office would only serve to keep out honest atheists.

    12. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      If the DMCA has the basic effect of inhibiting this progress, it is unconstitutional.

      That's a big if. Take a look at Eldred v. Ashcroft for an idea of how hard it is to prove that a law does not promote science and useful arts. If a retroactive copyright extension of works already created can be said to promote science and useful arts, pretty much anything could. Even if not (the supreme court has agreed to hear Eldred v. Ashcroft), the DMCA quite clearly has the potential to promote science and useful arts. The idea is that if artists can lock up their works with DRM systems then more of them are likely to create art.

      Then on top of that, the trafficking portions of the DMCA can be said to rely on the commerce clause, rather than the copyright clause.

    13. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by sconeu · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but the anti-circumvention clause can be said to violate the "limited time" portion of the Copyright clause.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    14. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by orthogonal · · Score: 1
      ..But you can rest easy! Just remember that any Supreme Court appointee must be approved by both houses of congress.

      No.

      The U.S. Constitution, at Article II, Section II (Powers of the U.S. President), paragraph 2, states "[the U.S. President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court ...

      Only the Senate "advises and consents"; the House of Representatives and its members has no say in the matter.

    15. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by mesocyclone · · Score: 2

      There is no constitutional conflict here. The president is free to pick judges by any criteria he wishes. And congress can reject them by any criteria we want.

      What they cannot do is pass (and expect to have upheld) a law which codifies the criteria.

      To read the constitution otherwise means that one has to read the minds of the president and congress when they reject someone. Let us say Bush rejects someone because he doesn't like their religion. Let's say he even (foolishly) says so. What exactly is the lawsuit to be brought? What does one argue before the supreme court? Do you argue that he must appoint this person because his reasons were invalid? To do so would be to violate the President's duties... the court cannot force him to appoint a person of their choosing!

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    16. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      A substantially different finding in another Curcuit would force the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between the Cuircut Courts. As 2600 explains it, this is precisly what they DON'T want, as it seems they'd prefer NOT to have the case appealled to the Supreme Court because they fear they'd get an adverse ruling.

      So this would, at best, give a limited and ephemeral victory folowed by a lasting adverse precedent beyond any chance of appeal. Better to wait for a more sympathetic Supreme Court, or a more perceptive legislature. Oh course, that will be quite a wait.

      (But... "A lot can happen in a year. The King might die, I might die, the horse might die. Or the horse might learn to talk")

    17. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2
      There is no constitutional conflict here. The president is free to pick judges by any criteria he wishes.
      The President takes an oath to "defend and protect the Constitution of the United States", and Article 6 Section 3 of that constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for any public office. That would include judges. There is a Constitutional conflict when someone who is sworn to uphold the Constitution chooses to ignore a part of it. Now, I do agree with you that no real action can be taken to remedy the situation, because as you say we can't read the mind of the President and tell why he chose to reject some judgeship candidate. But I don't call that "no constitutional conflict". If it happens that the President choses a candidate based partly on the candidate's religious beliefs, then it is a constitutional conflict - unfortunately it's one that can never be proven as such, though.

      And even in cases where it can be proven that The President has violated the Constitution, the only "remedy" available under the law is impeachment (and then of course it has to be something that pisses off the majority of the Congress, a category to which trampling the rights of atheists alas does not fit.) So whether you can sue him over it or not (you can't) is irrelevant to whether or not it is a Constitutional conflict.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    18. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      I duuno about the rest - but thats the best sig I have read in a long time - it really put things in perspective.

      And theres furthar irony given thats its the 4th of July...

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    19. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by mpe · · Score: 2

      As you'd expect from that, the Presidential Oath or Affirmation in Article II.1.8 [emory.edu] 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..


      Or at least that was the version pre the 1950's putting "god stickers" on anything in the US the'd stick to.

    20. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but the anti-circumvention clause can be said to violate the "limited time" portion of the Copyright clause.

      No, because you are only guilty of circumvention of "a work protected under this title". If the work is public domain, it's not illegal to circumvent the protection.

      Besides, 2600 wasn't being sued over the circumvention clause.

    21. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by jhoffoss · · Score: 1

      my bad...

      --
      Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
    22. Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court by dubl-u · · Score: 2

      Then we can rest easy; it's been a long time since Congress has had an honest member.

  7. Tragedy by cosmosis · · Score: 1, Redundant

    This is a tragedy, as this case is a clear cut examply of how the DMCA is unconstitutional because it violetes the First Ammendment. Now we may have to wait years before another sufficiently compelling case can be leveraged to bring down the DMCA.

    1. Re:Tragedy by ricst · · Score: 1

      Sorry. This is not a tragedy. The attacks on the WTC were a tragedy. The genocides in Africa were a tragedy. This is a setback. The DMCA will eventually be overturned or supplanted by less restrictive legislation. DeCSS is still available is some nooks and crannies of the Internet. Eventually a stronger case will emerge, and hopefully a new president will be appointing less right wing judges. But for now we need to accept this decision as a defeat, a setback to be sure, and move on.

  8. my favorite factoid by Patrick13 · · Score: 5, Funny

    When CNN was covering this case on their site, a year or so ago, they actually published links to DeCSS software...

    I still have a screenshot of it in my HD...

    --
    ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
    1. Re:my favorite factoid by indiigo · · Score: 1

      wirednews.com still hosts the file, themselves, and many new organizations point to links of where to get the file.

      It's just rediculous.

      --
      fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-86 8650 3-985-fdsg8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-9
    2. Re:my favorite factoid by Patrick13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      could you provide the link please ?

      Here it is:
      http://cnndecss.0catch.com/

      sorry about the lame banners & schitt, but I am not going to slashdot my own damn servers...

      ps this free host says they give you "unlimited bandwidth"... LOL.

      --
      ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
  9. They may win this round by JanusFury · · Score: 1

    The MPAA wins this battle... but it still remains to be seen who's going to win the war. So this 'strategy' doesn't work - our fair-use rights are worth fighting for. We need to find new, legal or semi-legal ways of fighting back against the MPAA. Let's take THEM to court. Let's use their laws against them. Let's show them who's boss. The fundamental law of business is that the customer is always right - they seem to have forgotten that, so it's time to teach them.

    --
    using namespace slashdot;
    troll::post();
  10. dvd2svcd is that illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I use dvd2svcd.org all the time to irp SVCDs and VCDs. I suppose the only thing possibly illegal is the included auth.dll which allows you to rip it to your drive.

    Perhaps in the future a year from now it won't come with auth.dll and another version will be created. In the meantime download away!

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. What is it that we are buying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:What is it that we are buying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

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

      Don't like that model? Don't spend your money that way. See, this is how capitalism works - people and companies that provide goods and services are given money in exchange for the use of those goods and services. If people don't like the terms, they don't spend the money, and the terms change.

      Obviously, a lot of people don't mind not owning the copyright on the media they purchase. They're perfectly content to just watch the movie, and those few who want to copy the content without paying for the privilege are left up shit creek.

      Again, you don't like it, don't buy it, or create something better. That's capitalism. Capitalism works. Whining doesn't. Deal.

    2. Re:What is it that we are buying? by SquadBoy · · Score: 2

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en=UTF-8=UTF-8=dec ss

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    3. Re:What is it that we are buying? by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      You are buying a lovely, crunchy Cellophane wrapper. It's yours, to do with as you please. You can even share(tm) with a friend! How's that for freedom?

      As a bonus, when you buy this Cellophane, you also get a limited right to do certain things with the Box and shiny Plastic Disc inside. You may open the Box with your right hand, remove the Disc with your left, and insert it into an approved Device to view or listen to some Content. There are several Devices you may use for this purpose. After you view or listen to the Content (please do not fast-forward, although there are no commercials [yet], we don't want you getting into the habit), please return it to the box, and lock it away so no one else can use it. In fact if you want to just throw the whole thing away, and buy it again next time you want to view the Content, that's just fine with us. You'll even get another piece of Cellophane!!

    4. Re:What is it that we are buying? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      See, this is how capitalism works - people and companies that provide goods and services are given money in exchange for the use of those goods and services.

      NO. Capitilism does not work by government granted monopolies. If this were true capitalism, I would be allowed to do anything I want with the property I own, not restricted by law against copying and even interpreting my property.

      That's capitalism. Capitalism works.

      Not when there's a monopoly product.

    5. Re:What is it that we are buying? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2
      I agree with your anger, but capitalism != a free market. Capitalism is the use of private capital to generate more, through investments in businesses. Governments may intervene to their heart's content as long as the investment and cycle of capital continues. A free market is one where the government does not set up monopolies (and a case can be made on either side for whether it should break up and/or regulate naturally formed monopolies), but a free market could (theoretically) exist in a country where the system is set up to support cooperatives, and a capitalist regime could restrict freedom to only the richest, with monopolies on everything from the supply of oil to the supply of chocolate to those who bid the highest to governments for a licence.

      So, in a sense, the person you were responding to was correct, but was promoting something as positive using logic that didn't actually imply positiveness.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:What is it that we are buying? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      a capitalist regime could restrict freedom to only the richest, with monopolies on everything from the supply of oil to the supply of chocolate to those who bid the highest to governments for a licence.

      True, I guess, but then I have a problem with his statment that "captialism works".

      I do believe that "capitalism works" in a free market, but the United States is far from a free market. As such a lot of what you learn in Economics 101 and 102 about fair prices being set by the market goes out the window.

  13. Self Imposed Scapegoat? by monkeydo · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I don't agreed with the DMCA. It is probably unconstitutional and at some point it will be overturned. I also fully support 2600's decision, but this statement frm their website:

    The MPAA and their cronies went out of their way to choose a defendant (us) that the court system would be prejudiced against.

    Is complete bullshit. 2600 goes out of their way to get sued and make test cases. I would venture to say that being in court is the best publicilty 2600 ever gets. A lot of people got cease and decist letters over DeCSS. Some decided not to fight, 2600 decided to thumb their noses at the MPAA and Judge Kaplan, and they felt the consequences.

    I'm not saying they deserved what they got, but they are acting like the MPAA came after them with no warning or provocation. When you poke a bear you shouldn't be suprised if it chases you up a tree.

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    1. Re:Self Imposed Scapegoat? by ryanr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've never gotten the impression that they go looking for trouble. They just do what they always do, but they stick up for themselves.

    2. Re:Self Imposed Scapegoat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Perhaps you need to go back and look at the case again. The MPAA put up a weak-as-shit case, 2600's lawyers burned Jack Valenti and other suits on the stand..

      And after it was all said and done, the most obvious free-speech case in the last 2 years didn't recieve the constitutional ruling it deserved.

      They are totally right, the MPAA went after them because they were the best target. After all, do you see them suing AOL/TW, who posted a link to the code on the CNN.com webpage? Or, perhaps, after all the other news sites that posted to sites that posted to the code? After all, 2600 can't even post to sites that post to code, that's a part of the ruling.

      No, the MPAA chose their battle very wisely. Now, 2600 is doing the same in choosing to not do battle.

    3. Re:Self Imposed Scapegoat? by quasi_steller · · Score: 1

      If it were totally untrue that:

      The MPAA and their cronies went out of their way to choose a defendant (us) that the court system would be prejudiced against.

      then why didn't the MPAA go after CNN and the other sites that posted links to DeCSS on their web sites? I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I just want to know your explination.

      --
      ...interesting if true.
    4. Re:Self Imposed Scapegoat? by defile · · Score: 2

      Their "hacker" image ended up hurting them in court. The MPAA lawyers played up the fact that they published what looks like the anarchist's playbook. If these cases had happened more recently you can be sure they would've played the terrorism card. To the uninformed, or frankly, to anyone incapable of intelligent reasoning, 2600 appears to be a criminal group with an underground publication attempting to spread terror. The only way it could've been better for the MPAA is if it were Neo Nazis linking to DeCSS.

      This is in fact all too common. When someone wants to promote their point of view they attempt to make those that disagree appear stupid, evil, or otherwise unappealing. Fox News does it all the time when they invite "liberals" onto their shows to comment--they find maniacs with some twisted point of view and then proceed to ridicule them, and to try to generalize it against an entire group.

    5. Re:Self Imposed Scapegoat? by rjamestaylor · · Score: 2
      • then why didn't the MPAA go after CNN
      Let's see...the MPAA respresents the movie insdustry, specifically its members, which include:
      • Universal City Studios, Inc
      • Paramount Pictures Corporation
      • Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc
      • TriStar Pictures, Inc
      • Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc
      • Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.
      • Disney Enterprises, Inc.
      • Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
      and CNN is a Time-Warner property...

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    6. Re:Self Imposed Scapegoat? by phyxeld · · Score: 1

      then why didn't the MPAA go after CNN and the other sites that posted links to DeCSS on their web sites?

      I think the original poster is saying that 2600 brought it on themself by not removing the links when they were first asked to. Lots of people got Cease and Desist letters; most complied. Surely, if CNN got one, they would have taken down the link (and they may well have).

      The free-speech issue here is two-fold, however. It's one thing to argue about if DeCSS itself is protected speech (I certainly think source code is speech), but it's another thing entirely to argue about hyperlinks. If I published a book in Mexico, but the American government deemed it ilegal, would it also be ilegal to tell people where there are bookstores in Mexico? Thats essentially what restricting hyperlinks is doing. Not just restricting information, but restricting pointers to information.

      So... Why hasn't google received a cease and desist yet?

      And, doesn't this comment make slashdot.org a violator of the DMCA?!! (assuming the .zip file linked at the bottom of the page linked from that comment is actually DeCSS)

      --
      __
      Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
  14. This is such a bummer by H1r0Pr0tag0n1st · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Americans could not be more self absorbed if they were made of equal parts water and paper towel. -Dennis Miller
    1. Re:This is such a bummer by marxmarv · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Jello Biafra had it too right when he quoth "One nation under God... or else."

      -jhp

      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
  15. 2600 not doing it is much gooder by Vodak · · Score: 2

    Lets think about this for a bit, think about all the stupid ways the court has been ruling on things. (an no I'm not talking about the florida voting thing and school vochers)

    I say good game to 2600 and the EFF for not screwing it up entirly for people. let the court change a few seats before someone brings this up again (and it will happen agin if not by 2600 then by someone else).

    my 2cents

    1. Re:2600 not doing it is much gooder by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      You have no good grammer.

    2. Re:2600 not doing it is much gooder by uhoreg · · Score: 1

      grammar. Not grammer.

      --

      To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.

    3. Re:2600 not doing it is much gooder by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      Sure, that's how you spell it if your not a hick.

    4. Re:2600 not doing it is much gooder by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      you're, not your

  16. But thanks anyway! by Spackler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    2600,
    Your fight on this case has brought more attention to the issue than any publicity campaign could have ever raised! You more than caried your share of the load for us all. Someone will pick up the fight from here, because our rights are still there, no matter what stupid act, or congress idiot thinks about taking them away, and calling it a Patriot Act.
    THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS.

    PS: The only Patriot Act that should have passed was the one in the Superbowl! Go Pats, do it again!

  17. Am I being slow or what? by Aliks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Google readily finds a number of sites, some clearly in the US, with code executables. Are these legal or just not sued yet?

    1. Re:Am I being slow or what? by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the cache. Not only is google linking to the source, but they are freely giving away the source.

  18. Happy Fourth of July everyone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Isn't it great to live in the land of the free!

    1. Re:Happy Fourth of July everyone! by BoVLB · · Score: 1

      Fourth of July. The day when America celebrates traditional values like conformity, unquestioning obedience to authority, and the triumph of unaccountable centralized government over basic human rights.

    2. Re:Happy Fourth of July everyone! by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Funny
      Cheer up. It's the day you celebrate removing from the states the rule of someone called George, who was appointed ruler despite never having a plebicite with a majority vote for him as a mandate, who was mentally one teabag short of a pot of tea, and whose only qualification for the job was that his dad, also called George, once did it too.

      Who knows, it might happen again.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Happy Fourth of July everyone! by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2

      Well, we've had two Georges now who were both President and related to each other, one of whom was not elected by popular vote. Does that mean we can expect the revolution during George #3's (Dubya Jr, anyone?) reign, I mean, term of office?

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    4. Re:Happy Fourth of July everyone! by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2
      We don't elect presidents in this country by popular vote

      I'm well aware of that.

      I'm sure you don't really care

      Say wha?

      I'm sure if Gore had won the electoral and lost the popular you would be extolling the virtues of the Electoral College

      This is truly fascinating. You know absolutely nothing about me and yet you somehow managed to divine my innermost thoughts from my mentioning a fact you can find in any almanac or election history website. How about next time you wait for me to say, "I don't like the electoral college" before ranting about my hypocracy? All I said was that Bush was not elected by popular vote, exactly as the parent had said that George III was not elected by popular vote. Kindly take your arrogance and shove it.

      By the way, one of the reasons we don't use the popular vote is the difficulty of counting 100,000,000 votes

      Well now there's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Regardless of how you 'group' them, you still have to count all 100,000,000 of those votes.

      Why am I responding to a troll? The world, may never know...

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  19. The perl source by -stax · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nested slashdot comments are cool.

  20. Re:It serves these scofflaws right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    It serves these scofflaws right. (Score:-1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03, @06:17PM (#3818264) I find it unfortunate that these "hackers" weren't thrown in prison for pirating Hollywood's intellectual property. There is no legitimate reason why anyone should have a copy of DeCSS, or any other cracking tool. It is the same as owning a set of home burglary tools.
    I know I'm replying to a troll, but I happen to know two people with burglary-like tools. One is a locksmith. He uses them - legally - to make his living. The second is a Car Dealer / trader. He purchases cars @ auctions on a regular basis, and sometimes they don't come with keys. Also, is it really like a burglar's tool when you're getting a copy of the key to your own door? After all, I purchased the DVD. I have the right to do anything I bloody well feel like with it, as long as I don't distribute it. They should not care if I watch it on Linux, Windows, Mac, my DVD player, or even a Record player if I can figure out how to! If they don't want someone to write a program to read them for an OS listed, then they should make that pointless by WRITING THEIR OWN. Since they did not, someone esle did. I deal with copyrighted material everyday - I make it. However, it is REQUIRED BY LAW for everything I make to be readable by anyone with the proper knowledge. Mainly because I draft & design homes for a living.
  21. This battle was a draw, the war is not over... by GeekWithGuns · · Score: 1

    I mean who here does not have a copy of DeCSS? As soon as I read the story here, I downloaded a copy via one of the dozens of links posted.

    The MPAA did a much better job of spreading DeCSS than anybody else could have. Nobody would have cared much about this little bit of code otherwise. This code will now live on forever and they can't do a damn thing about it.

    For those keeping score at home, current score: MPAA 1, Geeks 1. Round 2 comming soon.

    --
    [End of diatribe. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...] - Larry Wall in Configure from the perl
    1. Re:This battle was a draw, the war is not over... by izx · · Score: 1

      OT: Nice sig -- go EE Majors!

    2. Re:This battle was a draw, the war is not over... by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      'pedantic nerd': no double "E"s?

  22. Prudence by Crayola · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree with 2600's decision. The worst thing that could happen here is for the Supreme Court to get the chance to put another nail in the coffin for our rights. The MPAA is doing everything it can to squeeze the consumer, from using anti-competitive region codes to strangling the signal coming out of the DVD player by prohibiting Firewire ports.

  23. What about Andrew Bunner ? by cOdEgUru · · Score: 4, Informative

    I used to work with Andrew a while back in SF and around that time, he had a temporary win which was covered in Slashdot and other media. I have since lost touch with him, but I would like to know what has happened to that case. I dont know what stage it is in (I believe it was High court).

    Although 2600 has lost this battle, I wish Andrew would have better luck.

    1. Re:What about Andrew Bunner ? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      I believe it was High court

      In other news, the case lost on appeal on the grounds that the previous judge concluded the case quickly so he could go get some "munchies".

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:What about Andrew Bunner ? by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      Ha ha.

      Obviously you've never smoked before.

      You remind me of the scene in Fear and Loathing where the Cop Conventioneers are learning why users call a roach a "roach".

      (Oh, and if you really are stoned right now, you're a dork for posting such lameness to a fucking website)

      you LOSE. Smoke a bowl. It'll help you in life. I'm FUCKING serious!

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    3. Re:What about Andrew Bunner ? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Obviously you've never smoked before.

      Why is that obvious?

      You remind me of the scene in Fear and Loathing where the Cop Conventioneers are learning why users call a roach a "roach".

      Must have missed that part. All I remember from that movie was the whole white rabbit thing.

      Havn't you ever noticed that half my posts are for the legalization of drugs and an end to this stupid drug war?

      I don't smoke anymore, havn't for a while now, but I still think it should be legal.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:What about Andrew Bunner ? by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      Why is that obvious?

      Because your crack about "the munchies" was trite, predictable, and appeared so contrived that it looked like you were asking for points.

      This usually only happens from people who don't happen to be stoned or know that they can get there in short order.

      Must have missed that part. All I remember from that movie was the whole white rabbit thing.

      I don't remember anything about a white rabbit. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas ... Johnny Depp and that other guy? The one in Traffic?

      No white rabbit.

      Havn't you ever noticed that half my posts are for the legalization of drugs and an end to this stupid drug war?

      Sorry, I don't track your posts. Although if this is true I back you 110% just to make my old gym instructor happy.

      I don't smoke anymore, havn't for a while now

      Ah, well, then ... perhaps let me say that I haven't noticed that it's that "cool" to talk about "munchies" anymore. :)

      That's the whole nut in a scrot, really.

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    5. Re:What about Andrew Bunner ? by BumbaCLot · · Score: 1

      White Rabbit is the song by Jefferson Airplane on the reel-to-reel tape deck that he wants tossed into the tub at the climax of the song so he can die peaking. If you are going to claim to be an 'expert' on drug culture try stopping by a used record store and picking up something pre-Wham!.

    6. Re:What about Andrew Bunner ? by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert, but now that you mention it I do remember the scene, in some sense.

      I would have just commented on the oranges/knife/bathtub before white rabbit ... but I guess that's the circles I run in.

      When the guy above said "white rabbit" I thought he was referring to some scene wherein they chased a goddamn rabbit around and whatnot. Another popular movie in "some" circles is Alice in Wonderland and I thought that someone might have been mixing them up.

      Thanks.

      BTW ... was it reel-to-reel? ... I thought it was just a regular ol' radio ... *sigh*

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    7. Re:What about Andrew Bunner ? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      You've not been to that second hand record store yet, have you?

      White Rabbit, the song by Jefferson Airplane, is almost entirely Alice references.

      From memory (I could google for lyrics, I guess):

      "Some pills make you bigger,
      Some pills make you small,
      And the pills that mother gives you,
      Don't do anything at all.

      Go ask Alice
      When she's ten feet tall.

      And if you go chasing rabbits,
      And you know you're going to fall,
      Tell them a hookah-smoking catterpiller
      Has given you the call.

      Go ask Alice,
      When she was just small. ...
      "

      FatPhil

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  24. Intresting by Peridriga · · Score: 4, Interesting
    1. Re:Intresting by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2
      Add Any I left out :-)

      yeah Disney's go.com

    2. Re:Intresting by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Oops never mind - must have gone crazy and missed the one on your list.

    3. Re:Intresting by uhoreg · · Score: 1
      Yahoo has blocked the search of DeCSS

      What are you talking about? Note that Yahoo! by default searches its categorized directory first. If you click on the "Web Page Matches" link, you get a "Powered by Google" search.

      --

      To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.

    4. Re:Intresting by nolesrule · · Score: 1

      Overture.com was Goto.com. Go.com is still Go.com, and is owned by Disney.

      --
      -- nolesrule
    5. Re:Intresting by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      More to the point, even Yahoo's categorized search brings up one result, a link to http://www.pzcommunications.com/decss/articles.htm headlined "DeCSS Articles". So I'm confuzzled...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  25. EFF took the case even without a posterchild by geekotourist · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  26. Walmart and the DeCSS by RebelTycoon · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Wait until Walmart puts in a DVD player and an open source DVD Player based off of the DeCSS code.

    2600's association with hackers, phreakers, and crackers, etc, did not make it easy for them to appear as angels. Though the law shouldn't be biased, it is hard not to be, especially when you don't understand the jargon.

    Of course, its getting to the point that judges that do not become technically proficient SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH. If many judges still held racist views, would they be tolerated? I think not.

    Judges must become technically knowledgable. Greater effort must be spent on educating judges about technology.

    Explaining technology to someone who doesn't understand it is essential.

    1. Re:Walmart and the DeCSS by mrmag00 · · Score: 1

      Explaining technology to someone who doesn't understand it is essential.

      correct me if im wrong, but isn't that the whole point of the trial? to present the case, and your side of the case?

      I think explaining the technology would be covered under that. I don't think many judges would understand 32-bit memory addressing just as much as they would understand how to design a suspension bridge. They know law, and maybe some other specifics.

    2. Re:Walmart and the DeCSS by bratgrrl · · Score: 1

      There's still jurisdictions where judges don't even have to be lawyers, or have any legal background. Might be good to start with requiring them to know their jobs. Then teach them technology. First quiz question: explain memory and storage.

      --

      ---

      SCO is weenies
      Gator is Spyware
      Microsoft is thugs

  27. True Definition.... by SHEENmaster · · Score: 3, Informative

    Morals don't define what is made legal... Money does.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  28. I'm curious by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 2, Redundant

    In the judges statement, it defines "DeCSS" as:
    any computer program, file or device that may be used to decrypt or unscramble the contents of DVDs that are protected, or otherwise to circumvent the protection afforded by CSS and that permits the copying of the contents or any portion thereof.

    By this definition, wouldn't anything that could descramble CSS be considered 'DeCSS' such as WinDVD, or any DVD player on the market. In fact, DVD players permit copying, because I could run the output into a VCR, and I'm sure some dual deck DVD players might be coming out soon, and if those will permit copying, they could be considered 'DeCSS'.

    This just seems to be an overly broad definition of DeCSS and could mean anything that can decrypt CSS including licensed programs. Maybe the clincher is that it permits copying, but couldn't anything that's not directly beamed to my eyeballs/brain be copied in some way?

    1. Re:I'm curious by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      By this definition, wouldn't anything that could descramble CSS be considered 'DeCSS' such as WinDVD, or any DVD player on the market.

      This point goes back to the subtleties and loopholes in DMCA. The key word is "circumvent." DMCA defines that word, and it doesn't mean what you (or anyone else) would think it means:

      to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner.
      Notice those last few words. If you have permission, then you're not circumventing. This is the hole that DVDCCA-licensed DVD players were intended to slip through, while simultaneously stopping unlicensed players.

      This hole was poorly designed for its purpose, and has some unintended weaknesses. You will find it an interesting diversion to consider some of the possibilities. (Hints to start you off: who owns the copyright on a DVD? Is it always the same party for all DVDs? In what form is this "authority" to bypass, given?) I have not, however, heard of any attempts at exploiting it to its full potential.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:I'm curious by tricorn · · Score: 1

      Anyone authorized by DVDCCA to make CSS-encrypted DVDs probably has to agree to only allow the DVDCCA to be able to authorize playback devices (and to require any content owner who is getting a DVD made to agree as well).

      However, the legal status of CSS (as opposed to DeCSS) seems pretty straightforward. It isn't protected by patent, it doesn't seem to be protected by trade secret (although the California case could change that, I suppose), and it wouldn't be covered by DMCA. So, use CSS, with your own private random key (that you don't publish) to encrypt some home movies, put them on a CD or DVD or even the Internet, and then authorize any and everyone to use DeCSS to decrypt your files. Since you didn't publish the key, a key-breaking routine would need to be part of the program.

      Where does the Macrovision bit get set? It would also be interesting to tweak their noses by turning on the bit and not pay them royalties. It would make an interesting court case, as that bit is only a convention telling certain DVD players to enable already-licensed hardware to utilize their patent.

  29. Re:I hate stupid taxes on media... by duren686 · · Score: 1

    I think we all just need to stop buying music period. If we don't give the RIAA our money, then they will not have any money to operate, and hopefully they will just die.


    Good idea, but they'll turn right around and say it's because of piracy that people don't buy their stuff. Then they'll get government subsidies and put even higher taxes on recordable media. Oh, and they'll get the money from those taxes too. They've backed us into a corner, it would seem.

    --
    Y2K Compliant since the late 1890s
  30. Donate: Don't let your innovation insurance lapse by geekotourist · · Score: 2
    The EFF is a form of insurance- we all would be a lot worse off without the work they've been doing for the past 12 years. You can look at all the cases they're working on now. They can't win all their cases, but with them around we won't automatically lose. But it can only happen if they have money- court cases are expensive and necessary. For this we need to join / donate.

    I've been to many of their events and know people there: the EFF isn't rolling in money- quite the opposite. It really is a non-profit, and money is their limiting factor: more money = more cases they could take. Far fewer people donate than you'd think, including people who have directly benefited from their work (if you're at a US internet security or encryption company that hasn't donated, try to change that!). They try to be at or ahead of the curve on tech issues, and this means that its harder to get the grandparent sympathy donation(2). And their main donation source- us, the techie crowd- just hasn't been doing to well lately. Unfortunately the number of cases the EFF should fight doesn't go down in an economic downturn, its probably the opposite: Congress is chumming for dollars with Disney / MPAA more than ever.

    (1) in the economics sense

    (2) If the EFF was a medical nonprofit, they wouldn't be the ones with the big-eyed sick children, they'd be the ones worrying about prions 20 years ago. Harder to explain, but often more important.

  31. Very sad by mikethegeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Very sad that an obviously biased judge (once worked in a law firm that represented Time Warner, one of the plantiffs) is allowed to hand down a horribly flawed ruling that stands because the clique of lifetime appointed, unaccountable Federal judges close ranks...

    It is even sadder that it matters WHO you are, not the merits of your case... The RIAA and the courts wanted nothing of Professor Felten, of Princeton, but have no trouble squashing the "eevilll" hackers of 2600, despite the fact that the DeCSS case was far stronger.

    Our government is owned by the highest bidder. The DeCSS case proves it. Sooner or later we will either be completely corporatized, or else line some of these buggers up against the wall. One or the other outcome is inevitable.

    --
    === The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
    1. Re:Very sad by mindstrm · · Score: 2

      The point of lifetime appointment is so that they don't have to worry about their decisions costing them their jobs due to political pressure; it's supposed to help them be impartial.

    2. Re:Very sad by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      The RIAA and the courts wanted nothing of Professor Felten, of Princeton, but have no trouble squashing the "eevilll" hackers of 2600, despite the fact that the DeCSS case was far stronger.

      Far stronger? Try 2600 broke the law. Felton did not. Sheesh.

      Our government is owned by the highest bidder. The DeCSS case proves it.

      No, the DMCA proves it. The DeCSS case simply proves that the constitution does not protect against government being owned by the highest bidder.

    3. Re:Very sad by mesocyclone · · Score: 2

      This analysis is nonsense. The judges aren't corporatized, no matter how wrong they are! They are appointed for life, and they decide however they like it. That's the way the constitution is written, and it has nothing to Hollywood or anyone else owning the judges!

      It is not obvious to me that publishing DeCSS is protected by the first amendment. It is not obvious to me that it is not. The amendment is not absolute... you can be prosecuted for a number of things you speak or write - for example, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, or inciting a riot, *or* participating in a criminal conspiracy.

      Copyright law exists to protect private property. The law is out of date in that it (and here is where corporatism - or more accurately - special interests come in) extends too far into the future. Beyond that, it is not at all unresonable that a person who creates something should control what he creates, and that is what this is all about. I think the copyright holders are idiots and haven't adapted to the digital age. But that doesn't change their rights.

      What I find more questionable is the remedies which they have been given in DMCA and other areas. It is one thing to have a property right, and another thing when the government persecutes people in an attempt to protect those rights.

      Traditionally, theft of copyrighted material has resulted in prosecution of those who profit by doing it en mass - i.e. tape and CD duplicators. This is not unreasonable. But when one can prosecute somebody for simply publishing, at no profit, technology for stealing the material... well... I think that's going to far.

      But it doesn't mean the judges are owned by corporations.
      The judges are making their decision - First Amendment vs. law and property rights. We may disagree, but from a legal standpoint, the judges are not obviously wrong - however much we dislike their ruling..

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    4. Re:Very sad by jakew · · Score: 1

      Actually, the amendment is absolute. It says, "Congress shall make no law..." It does not then go on to say "...except in such cases as..."

      By a strange interpretation of the word "no," this is not the present judicial thinking. But the amendment is as absolute as the statement "Objects accellerate towards earth at 9.81 metres per second per second."

    5. Re:Very sad by mikethegeek · · Score: 2

      "The point of lifetime appointment is so that they don't have to worry about their decisions costing them their jobs due to political pressure; it's supposed to help them be impartial."

      It doesnt. All it does is lock in their PARTIALITY in for life.

      Kaplan is a prime example. A lowly district judge, the lowest IN the Federal food chain, he came from a lawfirm that defended media companies (like TW). So, you can say that the IP lobby funded him then. He was also a Clinton appointee, which also suggests bias towards the media establishment (and the DMCA).

      Contrary to popular belief, FEW of these guys actually serve for life, because few of them get to move up and on, without sound political connections. So, Kaplan, as a lowly district judge, needs to either:

      1. Get himself some political buddies to get promoted (which could put him under the influence of a Senator Hollings, or some other pro-IP lobby politico)

      2. Get himself positioned (by doing favors) to cash out and go to work FOR a corporation.

      Option #2 is becoming more and more common, especially as our society and the corps become more litigious. Judges are picked from among the LAWYERS. Corps are most likely to USE lawyers, especially against consumer interest. Ergo, the judiciary, particulalry the newer judges (like Kaplan) are more likely to be PRO CORP...

      --
      === The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
  32. Possible legal solution for DVD playback on Linux by galaga79 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was thinking about this whole problem about Linux users not being able to legally play encrypted DVDs on their computers because DeCSS has been deemed illegal. We all know that the licenses for CSS keys and DVD playback cost money so a free and legal DVD player Linux is not possible, so with that said why don't commercial Linux distros like Mandrake, Redhat etc apply for licenses and sell it with their boxed set versions? It would make playing DVDs on Linux legal and it would provide an incentive to buy the box-set versions rather than just download the ISOs.

  33. Four words for you walmart / mandrake / lindows by Cardhore · · Score: 2

    Xine (with decss plugin), Mplayer, Ogle, Videolan

  34. once again , big business gets 'justice' by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Its disgusting that we have reached this point, where the one with the most money ( normally big business, or the actor, musician, politican, etc ) gets justice, not the common man.

    Regardless of common sence.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  35. Who cares? All your base are belong to us! by fragermk · · Score: 1

    This makes little or no difference at all. Kudos to 2600 for fighting the good fight. But you just can't argue with people who are still in the mindset of the antiquated industrial civilization (ie, these silly judges).

    However, it seems like in the long term it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent the free flow of information. Like the little rock in the big river... People who believe in privatized intellectual property are toast in a world that is packed with Internet connected PCs.

    If you think the RIAA, and the people behind CSS are upset now, wait until decentralized P-2-P data warehousing becomes popular, then they'll really be smokin'. That's only if micropayments don't make them wholey obsolete first.

  36. Smart decision... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

    It's much easier to whine about how the DMCA is unconstitutional when you don't have a supreme court ruling proving you wrong.

  37. Just create a Linux DVD player by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

    And if you get sued for a DMCA violation, counter-sue for unfair abuse of monopoly power.

  38. Damn. by Jbrecken · · Score: 1

    I'd been holding off buying a DVD player (and DVDs) waiting for them to win.

    I guess I'll never get one.

  39. Say what? by rebelcool · · Score: 2
    Where in the constitution is progress guaranteed?

    For that matter, how does the DMCA inhibit progress on its face? Where is the historical record that shows congress wanted to inhibit progress through its passage?

    The Supreme Court isnt in the business of striking down bad laws. They strike down unconstitutional laws. Bad laws are the duty of citizens and their legislature to take care of.

    --

    -

  40. serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That utility has no other specific reason for being than to rip off DVDs. Piracy is wrong. If you don't agree with the system, take part in it to bring about positive change.

    1. Re:serves them right by MasteroftheVoxel · · Score: 1

      um, no, how do you play DVDs in Linux?

  41. Idea! Public defenders against private lawsuits .. by pedro · · Score: 2

    funded by progressively high filing fees based on the damages sought after.
    SOMETHING has to be done to balance the power.
    If Megacorp A goes after littleguy B, and littleguy B is assigned Some Huge Lawyer by the court, and Megacorp would have to cough up a filing fee so large as to cover the costs of Huge Lawyer's bond against the action, then maybe we might see far less of this bullshit.
    Just a thought.

    --
    Brak: What's THAT?
    Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
  42. Activists? by evilninja · · Score: 1
    This may seem a little off-topic, but I'm curious about the number of lawyers, lobbyists, and/or petitioners there are in this audience. I don't mean to chastize any of you for lack of influence; I find it very easy to sit back and make a pro-technology biased decision about how things should be, but I'm minimally informed about the actual legal reasoning behind many of the decisions made in court. I guess it just baffles me that technology is so easy to defeat in court.

    DeCSS at 2600 vs. guns at WalMart: both can be used either legally or illegally. Guns can be used to kill people, DeCSS can be used to steal a minimal percentage of profit from a multi-million (billion?) dollar industry.

    My advice to 2600: get the NRA's lawyers.

  43. Can someone splain me this? by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Kaplan's findings of fact begin on page 32 of:

    http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2000/0817-decision. pd f

    I don't understand why 2600 attempted to argue the definition of "effectively" as the layman's definition, instead of arguing that the ability to play DVD's on computers at all, with other software permitted by the Plaintiffs, means that CSS does not effectively control the ability to copy (etc.) the material.

    I also don't understand why they did not argue this on the basis of the existance of the ability to make verbatim copies of DVD discs indicates that the CSS mechanism is in fact flawed by design, and therefore does not effectively control (etc.).

    Finally, I don't understand that they did not argue that the keys used by DeCSS were in fact the important part of the equation, and the DeCSS itself was not therefore a mechanism, without the keys, and that it was the keys, not the scrambling mechanism itself, which constitute the disclosure. That would imply that the keys were trade secrets... and anyone who followed the USL vs. BSDI and UC Berkeley case back in the early 1990's should be able to tell you that, once disclosed, a trade secret is no longer a trade secret.

    Can someone shed some light on this for me?

    -- Terry

  44. 2600 is blocked by my part of EDS - inappropriate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Double freedom irony? My part of EDS' inappropriate use policy blocks thism courtery of WebSense. Nice to know I'm bring protected by the thought police.

  45. constitutional conflict by commodoresloat · · Score: 2

    Great post... I agree mostly but I wonder though if the constitutional conflict in such a case is provable - there is no need to guess at a President's intent when he makes it so clear in a statement like the WP quote. He isn't just choosing to ignore the Constitution, he is in fact stating openly and unmistakably that he intends to violate its spirit and letter. Unfortunately, the separation of church and state - far more serious a matter than "trampling the rights of atheists" - is not valued highly by most of Congress, so you're right that we're not likely to see any Constitutional remedy here. But there is a remedy - the fury of the voters, who could, at least in theory, elect leaders who do care about that part of the First Amendment. Unfortunately that fury has only been cultivated by the wrong side of this debate, so we're not likely to see that remedy either.

  46. DMCA in Europe by tarmo · · Score: 1

    The European version of DMCA is the EU directive 2001/29/KY, which demands that all EU member countries make the appropriate changes to their own legistlations no later than the year 2003.

    In Finland the proposal is now ready and will go to the parliament vote in the early autumn, and will be effective as of December 2002.

    The directive will, in effect, make the circumvention of digital copy and access restrictions illegal, including the actual process and also hardware, software, products and services that do the same.

    --
    The world is not what it used to be.

  47. Re:Possible legal solution for DVD playback on Lin by alexpage · · Score: 1

    Because the DCMA would prevent them from doing so as Open Source software, license or no license, and that's not a good route to go down when it's in somebody else's interest, not yours.

  48. on the the schools by Vodak · · Score: 2

    I've been though a failed inner city school system so I understand what your saying. The inner city school systems do not only hurt the poor of the nation, but everyone as a whole. So I do agree that the voucher program is a good idea, anything to light a fire under the ass of a system that doesn't care.

    Teachers care ... the school system does not.

  49. Zeropaid discussion on this headline by wessman · · Score: 1

    Here is the Zeropaid news thread on this topic: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/0704200 2a.php

  50. Lincoln by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

    "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln