I think that these are the two weakest points in Judge Kaplan's ruling:
Judge Kaplan concludes that the fact that DeCSS runs under Windows means that DeCSS was not primarily developed for use under Linux. This is clearly untrue, and showing Judge Kaplan that it's untrue could win the case for the good guys by itself.
Judge Kaplan repeatedly, and incorrectly, assumes that DeCSS is about copying DVDs (this is crucial to his "balance" argument). As we all know, this is false both because DeCSS is intended for playing DVDs rather than for copying them, and because, in any event, you can copy DVDs with or without DeCSS for the same reason that you can copy a Chinese book even if you don't know the language.
These are independent of any First Amendment arguments (such as the effective abrogation of fair use) that have been considered by other posters. Reading through the decision carefully, I think it's clear that Judge Kaplan is not an idiot. But he is mistaken about some vital aspects of this case, and I hope he'll discover that for himself before issuing his verdict.
It's also easy to see that the plaintiffs' tactic of rushing the defense helped the plaintiffs tremendously; the defendants obviously had little time to marshal evidence or to prepare their arguments. But at least Judge Kaplan seems to remain open to later proof, which should give us some hope.
Finally, it's clear from reading his ruling that our behavior affects some of Judge Kaplan's opinions in this case, such as his opinion of whether DeCSS is mainly intended to facilitate illegal copying. This is understandable -- but unfortunately, it means that the minority of jerks who crow about copying DVDs are helping to ruin things for the majority of us, who only want to give the plaintiffs money in exchange for a DVD we can play on our Linux boxes.
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong: Penthouse featured PETs; Playboy featured BUNNIES (Beauties Undressed / Nearly-Nude, Idiotic but Enchanting Sex-objects.) (Or was the "IE" part for "Impotence-Eliminating"?)
I've got to learn to post this kind of thing anonymously.
It's hardest to oppose censorship when you otherwise agree with the stance of the would-be censor (as we nearly all do in this case). I've personally found this tactic to work well: point out that censoring "bad speech" tacitly concedes that "good speech" isn't strong enough to win the day. Censoring racists suggests that racist speech is more powerful than tolerant speech. Why would this be so, if the racists' position were false?
The answer, naturally, is that it is not so: where both sides are given a fair hearing, tolerance wins overwhelmingly. Censoring racism drives it underground and gives the racists the ammunition they need to continue their campaign. To put it bluntly, censoring a racist is the nicest favor you can do the bastard.
Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it in his first inaugural address, "... error of opinion can be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
Slashdot Mirror
- Judge Kaplan concludes that the fact that DeCSS runs under Windows means that DeCSS was not primarily developed for use under Linux. This is clearly untrue, and showing Judge Kaplan that it's untrue could win the case for the good guys by itself.
- Judge Kaplan repeatedly, and incorrectly, assumes that DeCSS is about copying DVDs (this is crucial to his "balance" argument). As we all know, this is false both because DeCSS is intended for playing DVDs rather than for copying them, and because, in any event, you can copy DVDs with or without DeCSS for the same reason that you can copy a Chinese book even if you don't know the language.
These are independent of any First Amendment arguments (such as the effective abrogation of fair use) that have been considered by other posters. Reading through the decision carefully, I think it's clear that Judge Kaplan is not an idiot. But he is mistaken about some vital aspects of this case, and I hope he'll discover that for himself before issuing his verdict.It's also easy to see that the plaintiffs' tactic of rushing the defense helped the plaintiffs tremendously; the defendants obviously had little time to marshal evidence or to prepare their arguments. But at least Judge Kaplan seems to remain open to later proof, which should give us some hope.
Finally, it's clear from reading his ruling that our behavior affects some of Judge Kaplan's opinions in this case, such as his opinion of whether DeCSS is mainly intended to facilitate illegal copying. This is understandable -- but unfortunately, it means that the minority of jerks who crow about copying DVDs are helping to ruin things for the majority of us, who only want to give the plaintiffs money in exchange for a DVD we can play on our Linux boxes.
I've got to learn to post this kind of thing anonymously.
The answer, naturally, is that it is not so: where both sides are given a fair hearing, tolerance wins overwhelmingly. Censoring racism drives it underground and gives the racists the ammunition they need to continue their campaign. To put it bluntly, censoring a racist is the nicest favor you can do the bastard.
Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it in his first inaugural address, "... error of opinion can be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."