News.com Links to DeCSS Program

zorglubxx writes "In less than a week News.com has published 2 articles ([Oct 3] and [Oct 7]) talking about copyright law and the DMCA where they LINK to DeCSS. Not source but compiled Windows version called DeCSS.exe. News.com know that 2600 lost their fight for linking to DeCSS so I wonder why they are doing this. Trying to make a point? Civil disobedience? An honest mistake?" Update: 10/08 02:51 GMT by T : An anonymous reader writes "In the time between when I read the first and second referenced articles, the links were updated to point the DeCSS gallery rather than DeCSS.exe"

Comments

Laws only work

[pyman]

if people want to keep them...

Exploiting Different Standards?

[RailGunner]

Could it be that news.com is simply pointing out the obvious double standard given to "hacker" sites like 2600.com and "reputable news sites" like news.com?

Seriously, if CNN.com would have originally linked to DeCSS do you think it would have gotten sued? (I know, pretend for a moment that it wasn't part of the AOLTimeWarner conglomerate though, and you'll get my point.)

Hopefully, a court case WILL come of this, and maybe we'll get a Judge with a clue that realizes the DMCA restricts your First Amendment rights.

Re:Exploiting Different Standards?

[neuroticia]

More likely News.com will be notified that they are in violation of the DMCA, and asked to cease and desist. Upon recieving notification, the author of the article that linked to DeCSS will be fired and blacklisted. (Or whoever created the link. The author might have nothing to do with it being a link.)

I really believe that if the Most Important Person in the World(tm) himself, ie: the head of the RIAA, were to post a link to DeCSS, the rest of the RIAA would go after him like a herd of rabid bunnies on crack.

That said... Yes. News.com is a more 'valid' publication in the eyes of many than 2600 ever will be, and thus harder to go after for posting legitimate news... But "harder" doesn't mean "impossible". Remember, the RIAA is well-funded by all the CDs they overprice, and all the artists they rip off.

-Sara

Re:Exploiting Different Standards?

[monkeydo]

Seriously, if CNN.com would have originally linked to DeCSS do you think it would have gotten sued?

Of course not. CNN would have taken down the link when they got the cease and desist letter. Their lawyers would have told them, "Sure you can fight it, but does that link actually have any value?"

Re:Exploiting Different Standards?

[JWW]

The DMCA is a bad law, and as citizens of this country we can choose to disobey bad laws.

That's really the definition of "Civil Disobedience".

I choose not to obey the DMCA every time I watch a DVD on my Linux machine at home. It takes a pretty shitty law to make watching a movie that I bought on my computer a crime. Its also a really pathetic act of civil disobedience, I mean come on I'm just watching a movie. Arresting people for doing this would be absolutely ridiculous.

These corporations that are pushing this crap better start watching themselves. In the war against the consumer the consumer is just beginning to understand how much control over what they buy that they are losing. If the restrictions being talked about for HDTV (copy bits and all that garbage) come to pass I think that will be the last straw.

Re:Exploiting Different Standards?

[Dr. Mu]

The DMCA is a bad law, and as citizens of this country we can choose to disobey bad laws. That's really the definition of "Civil Disobedience".

Well, you're half right. The half you left out is that you do it in a publicly conspicuous manner, so as to attract the attention of law enforcement, and be willing to pay the consequences of arrest and apprehension. Disobeying bad laws in the privacy of your parents' basement doesn't really count as "civil disobedience".

Re:Exploiting Different Standards?

[Guppy06]

"That's really the definition of "Civil Disobedience"."

Nah, that was the definition 100+ years ago. Today it involves chaining yourself to things, overturning cars, smashing windows, generally blocking public right-of-ways and using/damaging private property and then claiming that the First Amendment protects all this. None of it actually involves breaking a specific law that you're protesting.

Rhetorical question or what?

[Otter]

This falls under the "How the hell could we know the answer?" category.

But given the statement "But when Linux programmers wrote the DeCSS.exe utility to play DVDs on their computers.." with a link to something clearly labelled as a Windows app and the absence of any reference to 2600 or linking, I'd confidently guess that it never occurred to the writer or editor that there could be anything illegal about such a link.

News.com is within it's rights

[ageitgey]

There is no law in the US against linking to DeCSS. News.com is a news organization and is reporting the news as they see fit. If the DVD-CCA decides to bring suit against News.com and got a judgement forcing them to to stop linking, then they would have to remove the links.

But it is unlikely that the DVD-CCA would try something like that. They already have enough bad press in the tech sector, the last thing they need is bad press in mainstream news channels.

This is the same reason slashdot doesn't get raided by some government agency everytime a poster puts a link to DeCSS in a comment. There is no "don't link DeCSS law" and there is no legal ruling (yet...) preventing slashdot from posting DeCSS links in discussions.

14th Amendment?

[FreeUser]

Hopefully, a court case WILL come of this, and maybe we'll get a Judge with a clue that realizes the DMCA restricts your First Amendment rights.

Perhaps 2600.com could file suit under the 'equal protection under the law' clause. Technically, this sort of double standard is unconstitutional:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphesis mine]

Now, a literal reading might allow the federal government to be unfair, while requiring fairness from state governments, but I cannot imagine even our frighteningly corrupt supreme court interpreting the clause in such a fashion.

Re:Laws only work (with money)

[phorm]

Yes and no. Often laws work if a small amount of people with a lot of money want to keep them and are willing to fight with high-priced lawyers to keep them around. The laws may be tossed in the end, but the pricey lawyers can manage to keep them around and kicking for quite a few years.

Can you say test case?

[declana]

First, the Corely DeCSS injunction is limited to the plaintiffs in that case. Second, the author of both articles is none other than the EFF's Declan McCullagh. How much you wanna bet he's itching to become a name defendant . . . ?