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

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...

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!!

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...

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.