Slashdot Mirror
DVD Situation Takes New Turn
Several readers wrote in to let us know that the maintainer of css-auth has announced the
end of his involvement with CSS, while the DeCSS
person has removed the source from his website. The source has been removed at the behest of lawyers representing "the film industry".
Yes, have him remove the source from his webpage, this will fix everything. After all, it's well known that source code can't simply be downloaded like other files, and can't be copied endlessly throughout the net, or else we'd be in REAL trouble...oh wait, it can.
Anyways, I don't see the trouble, DVD will come to linux/freebsd/beos/whatever else in time as it becomes increasingly popular...though it still kinda pisses me off that those trying to help get crucified by the lawyers (so to speak) over it.
Derek was told that he was in violation of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, Sections 296(1) and (2). These sections read:
(1) This section applies where copies of a copyright work are issued to the public, by or with the licence of the copyright owner, in an electronic form which is copy-protected.
(2) The person issuing the copies to the public has the same rights against a person who, knowing or having reason to believe that it will be used to make infringing copies-
(a) makes, imports, sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire, or advertises for sale or hire, any device or means specifically designed or adapted to circumvent the form of copy-protection employed, or
(b) publishes information intended to enable or assist persons to circumvent that form of copy-protection,
as a copyright owner has in respect of an infringement of copyright.
[(2A) Where the copies being issued to the public as mentioned in subsection (1) are copies of a computer program, subsection (2) applies as if for the words "or advertises for sale or hire" there were substituted "advertises for sale or hire or possesses in the course of a business.]
Clearly, the DVD consortium would try to demonstrate breach of copyright under clause 2(b) as Derek has published information intended to enable or assist persons to circumvent that form of copy-protection. The fact that we are NOT using this information to actually copy DVDs is IRRELEVENT, simply publishing the information is, under this statute, equivalent to infringement of copyright.
In my opinion Derek would be found liable by the court as this statute stands. Derek is a scapegoat - the DVD consortium have not gone after others who have worked on cracking CSS because they reside in coutries that do not have such a law on the books. Unfortunately, the UK parliament passed this law (no doubt after considerable lobbying by industry groups) and Derek is a UK resident so they went after him.
EVEN if the DVD Consortium was on shaky legal grounds, the cost in time and money of fighting a copyright infringement case is astronomical and I think most people in Derek's position would have done the same thing.
There is no point in arguing over whether reverse engineering is legal, whether this is a breach of free speech; as the statute stands, publishing details on how to circumvent copyright prevention is itself an infringement of copyright, pure and simple.
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
source binary Mind moderating this up one or two so it shows in thread lists for people with higher thresholds :)