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

Don't Blame 2600

[waldoj]

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

Re:Don't Blame 2600

[Malcontent]

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.

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...

my favorite factoid

[Patrick13]

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...

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?

Re:What is it that we are buying?

[Dr. Awktagon]

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!!

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

But thanks anyway!

[Spackler]

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!

Prudence

[Crayola]

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.

What about Andrew Bunner ?

[cOdEgUru]

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.

Intresting

[Peridriga]

It's simply amazing that this got them in trouble.

Google Search Engine

Yahoo has blocked the search of DeCSS

Lycos

Altavista

MetaCrawler

Go. Now Overture. Owned By Disney/ABC

CNet (Search.com)

Add Any I left out :-)

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.

Walmart and the DeCSS

[RebelTycoon]

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.

Re:Self Imposed Scapegoat?

[ryanr]

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.

True Definition....

[SHEENmaster]

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

Very sad

[mikethegeek]

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.

Possible legal solution for DVD playback on Linux

[galaga79]

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.

Re:DeCSS

[schon]

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.

Can someone splain me this?

[tlambert]

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