1. The person selling them is on the other side. If you want to take me at my word, I can vouch for this by saying that I work around the corner from this, and I see the pirated tapes being sold there every day, and Goldstein is not the person I see selling them. 2. See above. 3. Yes, I can confirm it was him, as I was at the trial that day, as were many others.
The motion picture industry has a much more powerful influence in Washington, so I would not be suprised if we see another nonsenical ruling in this case.
The old white boys of the MPAA and the old white boys in DC are figuratively sucking each other's dicks, mostly due to the fact that Jack Valenti worked for LBJ.
>One thing I repeatedly saw in this article is >the phrase 'get it', as in certain people >(Garbus, hackers, etc.) 'get it' and certain >other people (the MPAA) don't 'get it'. I love >it when a group of people on either side tell >others how things should be and when the other >side doesn't agree, they say, "You just >don't 'get it', man!" Personally, I think >Corley's a numbskull. The court tells him to >quit distributing DeCSS so he goes out and >provides links to it. It's not a hard argument >to make that he's at least aiding the >distribution of the material. It would've been >just as easy to let others provide links. God >knows there's enough sites, and hell, all you >have to do is link to the filed briefs.
Well, he linked to the filed briefs, too.:) EG was enjoined from placing the DeCSS files on 2600's page, and presumably, anywhere in its directory. Judge Kaplan said nothing about placing links on his page, though. He didn't disobey the injunction--if he did, the MPAA would not have had to file another one.
No, you don't get it. DeCSS is in and of itself a separate issue from hyperlinking, but they both fall under the rubric of freedom of expression. DeCSS' objective is to actually increase speech-acts--that is, allowing people who may not otherwise have the ablity to view a movie on DVD as a result of a DVD's regional coding, etc. (aside from paying a hefty price for another player) to do so. Placing your speech-act in the "market of ideas" is the whole point, yes? Unfortunately, the MPAA is too greedy to consider ideas anymore--why have art when you can market films as commodities?
You can't compare DeCSS to a virus, because transmitting a virus gives rise to a completely different cause of action--that has nothing to do with copyright and fair use.
The MPAA *is* actually attacking piraters in Asia--Valenti spoke about this in a Reuters piece several days ago--but he's not doing it out of respect for artists' rights. He's doing it to encourage trade WITH China, something the rest of us in the thinking world are a bit skeptical of, if not passionately opposed to, because of their little human rights abuse problem over there.
Yes, you do. You have plenty of a say. If every 17-year-old thought s/he couldn't have an effect on the government, there might have been a much smaller revolution during the Vietnam Conflict. Remember, the 18-year-old boys who were drafted weren't allowed to vote (the voting age was 21), and look what happened!
Granted, this a *much* different issue. My point is, though, if every teenager thought s/he couldn't make a difference, we would be nowhere.
So please, write write write to your congressperson! I grew up in House Speaker Hastert's district (yes, I'm sorry, too), and when I was in high school, that man probably saw more mail from me than he did from the gas company. Did it help? Doubtful--he's Speaker of the House now. However, it did give me a feeling that I could do *something*, no matter how small. Most adults are too apathetic/lazy to call in to CSPAN, much less write a letter. Get in the habit of speaking out now.
No, you can't say that any of this is illegal--it's not illegal. The MPAA *claims* this is illegal, and has filed motions saying so. However, whether DeCSS and the links to DeCSS are illegal has not been decided--it won't be until after the trial.
A judge can grant a preliminary injunction to stop practically anything; however, doing so only says, "Stop what you're doing until we've had time to deal with this at trial or you settle."
With respect to your idea about how being unaware that a site you link to may not give you legal trouble, (unfortunately) may not be true. You could certainly be liable under a standard of negligence, that is, although you may not have known what the links contained, you *should have known* what the links contained.
Of course, I think the MPAA is full of monkey crap, but I'll go ahead and address that in another post.
Slashdot Mirror
1. The person selling them is on the other side. If you want to take me at my word, I can vouch for this by saying that I work around the corner from this, and I see the pirated tapes being sold there every day, and Goldstein is not the person I see selling them.
2. See above.
3. Yes, I can confirm it was him, as I was at the trial that day, as were many others.
The old white boys of the MPAA and the old white boys in DC are figuratively sucking each other's dicks, mostly due to the fact that Jack Valenti worked for LBJ.
>the phrase 'get it', as in certain people
>(Garbus, hackers, etc.) 'get it' and certain
>other people (the MPAA) don't 'get it'. I love
>it when a group of people on either side tell
>others how things should be and when the other
>side doesn't agree, they say, "You just
>don't 'get it', man!" Personally, I think
>Corley's a numbskull. The court tells him to
>quit distributing DeCSS so he goes out and
>provides links to it. It's not a hard argument
>to make that he's at least aiding the
>distribution of the material. It would've been
>just as easy to let others provide links. God
>knows there's enough sites, and hell, all you
>have to do is link to the filed briefs.
Well, he linked to the filed briefs, too. :) EG was enjoined from placing the DeCSS files on 2600's page, and presumably, anywhere in its directory. Judge Kaplan said nothing about placing links on his page, though. He didn't disobey the injunction--if he did, the MPAA would not have had to file another one.
No, you don't get it. DeCSS is in and of itself a separate issue from hyperlinking, but they both fall under the rubric of freedom of expression. DeCSS' objective is to actually increase speech-acts--that is, allowing people who may not otherwise have the ablity to view a movie on DVD as a result of a DVD's regional coding, etc. (aside from paying a hefty price for another player) to do so. Placing your speech-act in the "market of ideas" is the whole point, yes? Unfortunately, the MPAA is too greedy to consider ideas anymore--why have art when you can market films as commodities?
You can't compare DeCSS to a virus, because transmitting a virus gives rise to a completely different cause of action--that has nothing to do with copyright and fair use.
The MPAA *is* actually attacking piraters in Asia--Valenti spoke about this in a Reuters piece several days ago--but he's not doing it out of respect for artists' rights. He's doing it to encourage trade WITH China, something the rest of us in the thinking world are a bit skeptical of, if not passionately opposed to, because of their little human rights abuse problem over there.
Granted, this a *much* different issue. My point is, though, if every teenager thought s/he couldn't make a difference, we would be nowhere.
So please, write write write to your congressperson! I grew up in House Speaker Hastert's district (yes, I'm sorry, too), and when I was in high school, that man probably saw more mail from me than he did from the gas company. Did it help? Doubtful--he's Speaker of the House now. However, it did give me a feeling that I could do *something*, no matter how small. Most adults are too apathetic/lazy to call in to CSPAN, much less write a letter. Get in the habit of speaking out now.
xoxo
shana
A judge can grant a preliminary injunction to stop practically anything; however, doing so only says, "Stop what you're doing until we've had time to deal with this at trial or you settle."
With respect to your idea about how being unaware that a site you link to may not give you legal trouble, (unfortunately) may not be true. You could certainly be liable under a standard of negligence, that is, although you may not have known what the links contained, you *should have known* what the links contained.
Of course, I think the MPAA is full of monkey crap, but I'll go ahead and address that in another post.
xoxo
shana