"Today fearless government agents, under expert leadership from BillG himself, stormed a factory dedicated to the eradication of the American Way!
I used to work for a computer store, and we would regularly get crap like this from Microsoft. The letters basically read "You sell computers so we think you're already a bunch of thieves, here's a bunch of people we sued this week."
The letters were grossly insulting and a pretty shitty way to treat your own retailers.
Ebay is a business. It's not financially sound for them to do anything besides what they are doing.
I also don't get precisely the legal basis of the complaints from Microsoft. Are they using DMCA? It sounds like that. It seems like nobody has a clue what basis this is on.
If it's DMCA, then you can just counternotify and eBay puts it back up or is in breach of contract. Further, DMCA specifically authorizes civil penalties for misrepresentation in DMCA notifications.
Misrepresentations. The Act provides that anyone who knowingly materially misrepresents under the Act that material is infringing is liable for any damages incurred by an OSP or a User as a result of the OSP relying on such misrepresentation in removing or blocking material.48
chiral Definition: A term used to describe a molecule which, in a given configuration, cannot be superimposed on its mirror image. This is in contrast to achiral molecules which can be superimposed on their mirror images. The two mirror image versions of the molecule are known as "levo" (left-handed), abbreviated "L," or "dextro" (right handed), abbreviated "D," depending on which way they rotate polarized light.
chiral compound Definition: A molecule that has an asymmetric center and can be found in two non-superimposable mirror-image forms (enantiomers).
[I'm not quoting the parent, go up, it's the one where the whole article is a link;-)]
Interestingly, by the Webster 1913 the definition changed a bit to include an example listing "infringement" as the preferable term. It appears this argument has been going on for some time and is by no means over.
Piracy (Page: 1090) Pi"ra*cy (?), n.; pl. Piracies (#). [Cf. LL. piratia, Gr. . See Pirate.]
1. The act or crime of a pirate.
2. (Common Law) Robbery on the high seas; the taking of property from others on the open sea by open violence; without lawful authority, and with intent to steal; -- a crime answering to robbery on land. By statute law several other offenses committed on the seas (as trading with known pirates, or engaging in the slave trade) have been made piracy.
3. Sometimes used, in a quasi-figurative sense, of violation of copyright; but for this, infringement is the correct and preferable term." Abbott.
It was certainly not "robbery", in 1828, to illegally copy someone's writings.
Interestingly, though it WAS piracy!
This definition is from an *1856* law dictionary!
PIRACY, torts. By piracy is understood the plagiarisms of a book, engraving or other work, for which a copyright has been taken out. 2. When a piracy has been made of such a work, an injunction will be granted. 5 Ves. 709; 4 Ves. 681; 12 Ves. 270. Vide copyright.
Thanks for the correction. I should have looked at the act before I opened my mouth.
Not that it's that much of a mistake. Regardless of what the law actually SAYS, expensive legal firms are being hired to sue anyway, since it's new law, meaning expensive to litigate.
And so far, with the DeCSS case and a terminally clueless judge, it's working.
Anonmity is something our country has not historically supported, at least not by and large.
Fucking moron. Plus you post it as Anonymous Coward and then can't even spell it when it's already on the screen. Yeah, spelling flames are lame but this one is just too pathetic to pass up. Quoting the Supreme Court, you HAVE heard of that, right?
"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that were obnoxious [362 U.S. 60, 65] to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing, printing or publishing books. Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that time the Letters of Junius were written and the identity of their author is unknown to this day. Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes."
Feel the blast from the chocolate bomber: Infrared aimed at your head like your name was Sarah Connor. Decapitation, I ain't hesitatin' to put you in a funeral home With a bullet in your dome.
Gosh, he's just so BLACK with all this "niggaz" and "muthafuckaz" shit. OK, smoke crack, steal cars, shoot people. That's great for Dr. Dre and his homeyz. Then he suddenly gets all WHITE. "But don't infringe copyrights. That's baaaaaaaaaad."
"As we have previously advised, website developers and operators should be careful to avoid using copyrighted material without prior approval. Civil penalties for copyright violation, unchanged by the NET Act, reach up to $100,000 per occurrence. Under the NET Act, criminal penalties could now include up to $250,000 and five years in prison for "willful" infringement."
Under the DMCA, you are not allowed to own devices that can circumvent copy protection. It doesn't matter how many uses there are for your decoder, the mere possibility that it could be used to circumvent copy protection renders it illegal.
NOT true, according to a lawyer from Morrison and Foerster, a genuinely kickass intellectual property firm that likes to be called MoFo. I love that!
"To facilitate enforcement of the copyright owner's right to control access to his copyrighted work, the DMCA also prohibits manufacturing or making available technologies, products and services used to defeat technological measures controlling access. Similarly, the DMCA prohibits the manufacture and distribution of the means of circumventing technological measures protecting the rights of a copyright owner, e.g., measures which prevent reproduction. But to ensure that legitimate multipurpose devices can continue to be made and sold, the prohibition applies only to those devices that:
are primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing;
have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent; or
are marketed for use in circumventing. Id."
Quoted from THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT, Jonathan Band, Morrision & Foerster LLP Washington, D.C. jband@mofo.com
"The FTC estimates that U.S. consumers may have paid as much as $480 million more than they should have for CDs and other music because of these policies over the last three years," said FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky
Anyway, more with that theft theft theft thing. And that PERIOD thing. I hate that shit. The word you're looking for is "infringement." Even if we concede "theft," though--it's not that important a semantic point--I'd reckon we have about $480 million worth of theft to do before we're even. And as for that "period" shit, that's just an attempt to pretend the argument's over.
Let's get ripping, folks! Avast, ye scurvy dogs!
I said 'quod erat demonstrandum baby'/'Ooh you speak French!' Airhead, Thomas Dolby
The fuck it is. How many ways is this comment idiotic? Let me count the ways.
There is fair use of copyrighted materials, as much as jackasses like this want to pretend there isn't. There is no such thing as "fair use" of someone's car.
Infinite copies can be made of copyrighted materials for next to no cost. The same is not true of physical property.
Eventually, intellectual property lapses into the public domain. This does not happen with real property.
Those are just obvious ones. The only "period" about this statement is that this guy's brain is no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.
Pinhead Boy says about anonymity:
This is nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank.
The Supreme Court has upheld the right to anonymity. Somehow, I don't believe they've done the same for robbing banks. Instead of the ski mask comparison, why didn't he just compare it to KKK members wearing masks to burn crosses? Or just say anonymous people are NAZIs? That's about the ONLY thing he didn't say in this moronic speech.
Oh, I've got a better one! How about anonymous people are as bad as people who work for an industry that produces a toxic product that kills more people than all illegal drugs combined?
God I fucking hate these hydrocephalic corporate crack whore motherfuckers!
People will eventually release worms onto the Net which are autonomous, semi-intelligent, and self-replicating. The best of these worms will survive on the net and rapidly evolve into artificial creatures that will not be controllable, though it will be tried.
Eventually they will develop a low-grade of semi-intelligence and begin engaging in primitive activities such as posting first posts to slashdot and threatening copyright infringment suits.
This is a great idea. Microsoft House. Where you have to open a browser window to look in your filing cabinet, and when you flush the toilet it says "FLUSH32.DLL Damaged or Missing" and lets loose a tsunami of turds through the kitchen sink.
The front door GPFs when you open it and the central heating system belches out methane gas and carbon monoxide for eight months until you buy the Service Pack, which causes the carpets to catch fire and the ceilings to drip a strange, gelatinous sludge.
Distressed by rampant copyright infringements, the United States government will institute the Digital Apocalypse Copyright Act, which will authorize the death penalty for copyright infringement.
The Act itself will be a copyrighted trade secret, and to view it one must click an End User License Agreement agreeing to the fact that Microsoft owns EVERYTHING, forever.
The Act will also prohibit the distribution of dangerous contraband, such as child pornography, nuclear weapons plans, amphetamine recipes and Metallica songs.
The global internet will be confiscated by United States Federal Marshalls under an ex parte writ of civil seizure in an international class-action lawsuit by Metallica, Microsoft, the Recording Industry Association of America, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Church of Scientology, the Estate of T. S. Eliot, the sock puppet on pets.com and white rapper Kid Rock.
A lot of people have said that you can use Napster to find new bands you've never heard of.
Considering one of the main features is a search engine, it's fairly difficult to use a search engine to find something you've never heard of, and therefore don't have a name for.
I don't understand all this whining about the interview being supposedly incoherent. I read it with no problem at all. Some people just have comprehension problems or like senselessly bitching.
I'm trademarking the taste of my cock! I will serve notice on these lawyers and since I'm required to identify the taste in a reasonable manner, so that it may be identified, well, ON YOUR KNEES! zzzzzip
Linus said: "The one good lawsuit in the whole Napster case is the one by Metallica: a suit by the actual authors. While it's probably motivated mostly by money, I can still at least hope that there is a strong feeling of morals there, too."
I agree with Linus on this, at least partially. I think Metallica has come on rather heavy-handed and ultimately it's dumb, but I don't view them as evil thugs for doing it. (Unlike the RIAA.) Metallica at least had the balls to insist on actually owning the copyrights to their music, which I respect.
I still think their music has sucked for the last ten years, but they are actually acting for rights they legitimately own. I don't particularly care for how they're going about it, but at least they actually RIGHTFULLY own their copyrights, as opposed to RIAA thugs holding artists to contracts that practically amount to slavery.
"The record companies should conduct their business in a manner that suits my complete lack of moral fortitude when it comes to acquiring something that I want."
More like: the record companies should either face reality or get run over by it. If they don't they're just fucking stupid.
They can sit around whining while suing a pitiful portion of copyright infringers, while still expecting to be able to charge extortionate prices and screw the artists, and act like they're back in the 1940s, and they can get screwed for their dumb, dinosaur attitudes. Or they can come up with a business model that has something to do with reality as it is rather than as they'd like it to be.
Like it or not, they're not going to be able to force the issue by making feeble attempts to hold back technological progress.
They can evolve or die, and I frankly don't give a shit which. Even as it is no RIAA executives are starving to death, and even if they were I'd think it was funny.
"The Court is not persuaded that trade secret status should be deemed destroyed at this stage merely by the posting of the trade secret to the Internet. Religious Technology Center v. Netcom on-Line.com supra. To hold otherwise would do nothing less than encourage misappropriaters of trade secrets to post the fruits of their wrongdoing on the Internet as quickly as possible and as widely as possible thereby destroying a trade secret forever. Such a holding would not be prudent in this age of the Internet. Plaintiffs moved expeditiously, reasonably and responsibly to protect their proprietary information as soon as they discovered it had been disclosed by investigating, sending cease and desist letters all over the world and then filing suit against those who refused within two months of the disclosure. The Court is satisfied that trade secret status has not been destroyed."
Now the whole point of trade secrets is that you have to keep them secret. The judge here is apparently saying that he doesn't care that the material has already been downloaded by everyone and their grandmother. He is basically pulling the judicial equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and going "Neener neener I can't hear you."
Even more weirdly, he cites RTC v. Netcom, where the judge came to an entirely different conclusion, though stating that he was "troubled" by it.
"While the Internet has not reached the status where a temporary posting on a newsgroup is akin to publication in a major newspaper or on a television network, those with an interest in using the Church's trade secrets to compete with the Church are likely to look to the newsgroup. Thus, posting works to the Internet makes them "generally known" to the relevant people -- the potential "competitors" of the Church. The court is troubled by the notion that any Internet user, including those using "anonymous remainers" [sic] [29] to protect their identity, can destroy valuable intellectual property rights by posting them over the Internet, especially given the fact that there is little opportunity to screen postings before they are made."
The "Church" referenced is, of course, Scientology.
Slashdot Mirror
"Today fearless government agents, under expert leadership from BillG himself, stormed a factory dedicated to the eradication of the American Way!
I used to work for a computer store, and we would regularly get crap like this from Microsoft. The letters basically read "You sell computers so we think you're already a bunch of thieves, here's a bunch of people we sued this week."
The letters were grossly insulting and a pretty shitty way to treat your own retailers.
Ebay is a business. It's not financially sound for them to do anything besides what they are doing.
I also don't get precisely the legal basis of the complaints from Microsoft. Are they using DMCA? It sounds like that. It seems like nobody has a clue what basis this is on.
If it's DMCA, then you can just counternotify and eBay puts it back up or is in breach of contract. Further, DMCA specifically authorizes civil penalties for misrepresentation in DMCA notifications.
Misrepresentations. The Act provides that anyone who knowingly materially misrepresents under the Act that material is infringing is liable for any damages incurred by an OSP or a User as a result of the OSP relying on such misrepresentation in removing or blocking material.48
48 17 U.S.C. 512(f) (1998).
[Quoted from the Mighty Mofo's memo on DMCA.
Definition:
A term used to describe a molecule which, in
a given configuration, cannot be superimposed
on its mirror image. This is in contrast to
achiral molecules which can be superimposed
on their mirror images. The two mirror image versions of
the molecule are known as "levo" (left-handed),
abbreviated "L," or "dextro" (right handed),
abbreviated "D," depending on which way they
rotate polarized light.
chiral compound
Definition:
A molecule that has an asymmetric center and can
be found in two non-superimposable mirror-image
forms (enantiomers).
Science and Biotechnology Dictionary
[I'm not quoting the parent, go up, it's the one where the whole article is a link ;-)]
Interestingly, by the Webster 1913 the definition changed a bit to include an example listing "infringement" as the preferable term. It appears this argument has been going on for some time and is by no means over.
Piracy (Page: 1090)
Pi"ra*cy (?), n.; pl. Piracies (#). [Cf. LL.
piratia, Gr. . See Pirate.]
1. The act or crime of a pirate.
2. (Common Law) Robbery on the high seas; the taking of property from others on the open sea by open violence; without lawful authority, and with intent to steal; -- a crime answering to robbery on land. By statute law several other offenses committed on the seas (as trading with known pirates, or engaging in the slave trade) have been made piracy.
3. Sometimes used, in a quasi-figurative sense, of violation of copyright; but for this, infringement is the correct and preferable term." Abbott.
It was certainly not "robbery", in 1828, to illegally copy someone's writings.
Interestingly, though it WAS piracy!
This definition is from an *1856* law dictionary!
PIRACY, torts. By piracy is understood the plagiarisms of a book, engraving or other work, for which a copyright has been taken out. 2. When a piracy has been made of such a work, an injunction will be granted. 5 Ves. 709; 4 Ves. 681; 12 Ves. 270. Vide copyright.
Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition
Thanks for the correction. I should have looked at the act before I opened my mouth.
Not that it's that much of a mistake. Regardless of what the law actually SAYS, expensive legal firms are being hired to sue anyway, since it's new law, meaning expensive to litigate.
And so far, with the DeCSS case and a terminally clueless judge, it's working.
Anonmity is something our country has not historically supported, at least not by and large.
Fucking moron. Plus you post it as Anonymous Coward and then can't even spell it when it's already on the screen. Yeah, spelling flames are lame but this one is just too pathetic to pass up. Quoting the Supreme Court, you HAVE heard of that, right?
"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that were obnoxious [362 U.S. 60, 65] to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing, printing or publishing books. Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that time the Letters of Junius were written and the identity of their author is unknown to this day. Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes."
TALLEY v. CALIFORNIA, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)
Feel the blast from the chocolate bomber:
Infrared aimed at your head like your name was Sarah Connor.
Decapitation, I ain't hesitatin' to put you in a funeral home
With a bullet in your dome.
Gosh, he's just so BLACK with all this "niggaz" and "muthafuckaz" shit. OK, smoke crack, steal cars, shoot people. That's great for Dr. Dre and his homeyz. Then he suddenly gets all WHITE. "But don't infringe copyrights. That's baaaaaaaaaad."
Fucking corporate house nigger!
Um, what's the NET Act, and why is it significant?
HAHAHA! And YOU thought the DMCA was bad!
Here is a summary.
"As we have previously advised, website developers and operators should be careful to avoid using copyrighted material without prior approval. Civil penalties for copyright violation, unchanged by the NET Act, reach up to $100,000 per occurrence. Under the NET Act, criminal penalties could now include up to $250,000 and five years in prison for "willful" infringement."
Welcome to Amerika! Welcome to JAIL!
Guns can not be used to violate copyright. Please try to stay on topic.
Guns can, however, be used to shoot copyright litigants.
Under the DMCA, you are not allowed to own devices that can circumvent copy protection. It doesn't matter how many uses there are for your decoder, the mere possibility that it could be used to circumvent copy protection renders it illegal.
NOT true, according to a lawyer from Morrison and Foerster, a genuinely kickass intellectual property firm that likes to be called MoFo. I love that!
"To facilitate enforcement of the copyright owner's right to control access to his copyrighted work, the DMCA also prohibits manufacturing or making available technologies, products and services used to defeat technological measures controlling access. Similarly, the DMCA prohibits the manufacture and distribution of the means of circumventing technological measures protecting the rights of a copyright owner, e.g., measures which prevent reproduction. But to ensure that legitimate multipurpose devices can continue to be made and sold, the prohibition applies only to those devices that:
Quoted from THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT, Jonathan Band, Morrision & Foerster LLP Washington, D.C. jband@mofo.com
Full article here.
Incidentally, the Mighty MoFo were the pro bono defense lawyers for Dennis Erlich in his litigation with Scientology.
You can rationalize it all you want, but it's theft. Period.
[From a previous post]
http://www.lchb.com/cd.htm
"The FTC estimates that U.S. consumers may have paid as much as $480 million more than they should have for CDs and other music because of these policies over the last three years," said FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky
Anyway, more with that theft theft theft thing. And that PERIOD thing. I hate that shit. The word you're looking for is "infringement." Even if we concede "theft," though--it's not that important a semantic point--I'd reckon we have about $480 million worth of theft to do before we're even. And as for that "period" shit, that's just an attempt to pretend the argument's over.
Let's get ripping, folks! Avast, ye scurvy dogs!
I said 'quod erat demonstrandum baby'/'Ooh you speak French!' Airhead, Thomas Dolby
Professor Stupido commented:
And "intellectual property" is property, period.
The fuck it is. How many ways is this comment idiotic? Let me count the ways.
Those are just obvious ones. The only "period" about this statement is that this guy's brain is no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.
Pinhead Boy says about anonymity:
This is nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank.
The Supreme Court has upheld the right to anonymity. Somehow, I don't believe they've done the same for robbing banks. Instead of the ski mask comparison, why didn't he just compare it to KKK members wearing masks to burn crosses? Or just say anonymous people are NAZIs? That's about the ONLY thing he didn't say in this moronic speech.
Oh, I've got a better one! How about anonymous people are as bad as people who work for an industry that produces a toxic product that kills more people than all illegal drugs combined?
God I fucking hate these hydrocephalic corporate crack whore motherfuckers!
People will eventually release worms onto the Net which are autonomous, semi-intelligent, and self-replicating. The best of these worms will survive on the net and rapidly evolve into artificial creatures that will not be controllable, though it will be tried.
Eventually they will develop a low-grade of semi-intelligence and begin engaging in primitive activities such as posting first posts to slashdot and threatening copyright infringment suits.
it would be extremely cool if I could just get a pizza from some delivery joint in my town
Funny you mention that. I got one of those I-Opener Internet appliances, and it has a Pizza key on the keyboard that does just that.
This is a great idea. Microsoft House. Where you have to open a browser window to look in your filing cabinet, and when you flush the toilet it says "FLUSH32.DLL Damaged or Missing" and lets loose a tsunami of turds through the kitchen sink.
The front door GPFs when you open it and the central heating system belches out methane gas and carbon monoxide for eight months until you buy the Service Pack, which causes the carpets to catch fire and the ceilings to drip a strange, gelatinous sludge.
But the good thing is it does it at 10Gb/Sec.
In the Year 2000. . .
Distressed by rampant copyright infringements, the United States government will institute the Digital Apocalypse Copyright Act, which will authorize the death penalty for copyright infringement.
The Act itself will be a copyrighted trade secret, and to view it one must click an End User License Agreement agreeing to the fact that Microsoft owns EVERYTHING, forever.
The Act will also prohibit the distribution of dangerous contraband, such as child pornography, nuclear weapons plans, amphetamine recipes and Metallica songs.
Nobody will care.
In the year 2000. . .
The global internet will be confiscated by United States Federal Marshalls under an ex parte writ of civil seizure in an international class-action lawsuit by Metallica, Microsoft, the Recording Industry Association of America, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Church of Scientology, the Estate of T. S. Eliot, the sock puppet on pets.com and white rapper Kid Rock.
Nobody will notice.
A lot of people have said that you can use Napster to find new bands you've never heard of.
Considering one of the main features is a search engine, it's fairly difficult to use a search engine to find something you've never heard of, and therefore don't have a name for.
I don't understand all this whining about the interview being supposedly incoherent. I read it with no problem at all. Some people just have comprehension problems or like senselessly bitching.
I'm trademarking the taste of my cock! I will serve notice on these lawyers and since I'm required to identify the taste in a reasonable manner, so that it may be identified, well, ON YOUR KNEES! zzzzzip
Linus said: "The one good lawsuit in the whole Napster case is the one by Metallica: a suit by the actual authors. While it's probably motivated mostly by money, I can still at least hope that there is a strong feeling of morals there, too."
I agree with Linus on this, at least partially. I think Metallica has come on rather heavy-handed and ultimately it's dumb, but I don't view them as evil thugs for doing it. (Unlike the RIAA.) Metallica at least had the balls to insist on actually owning the copyrights to their music, which I respect.
I still think their music has sucked for the last ten years, but they are actually acting for rights they legitimately own. I don't particularly care for how they're going about it, but at least they actually RIGHTFULLY own their copyrights, as opposed to RIAA thugs holding artists to contracts that practically amount to slavery.
Put another way:
"The record companies should conduct their business in a manner that suits my complete lack of moral fortitude when it comes to acquiring something that I want."
More like: the record companies should either face reality or get run over by it. If they don't they're just fucking stupid.
They can sit around whining while suing a pitiful portion of copyright infringers, while still expecting to be able to charge extortionate prices and screw the artists, and act like they're back in the 1940s, and they can get screwed for their dumb, dinosaur attitudes. Or they can come up with a business model that has something to do with reality as it is rather than as they'd like it to be.
Like it or not, they're not going to be able to force the issue by making feeble attempts to hold back technological progress.
They can evolve or die, and I frankly don't give a shit which. Even as it is no RIAA executives are starving to death, and even if they were I'd think it was funny.
When DeCSS loses its trade secret status, though (and I think this is inevitable), then CSS could be inferred/REd from DeCSS.
In my opinion it already has lost trade secret status, but the judge in DVD CCA v. McLaughlin, Bunner et al. disagreed in this order. Frankly I find the idea a little weird.
"The Court is not persuaded that trade secret status should be deemed destroyed at this stage merely by the posting of the trade secret to the Internet. Religious Technology Center v. Netcom on-Line.com supra. To hold otherwise would do nothing less than encourage misappropriaters of trade secrets to post the fruits of their wrongdoing on the Internet as quickly as possible and as widely as possible thereby destroying a trade secret forever. Such a holding would not be prudent in this age of the Internet. Plaintiffs moved expeditiously, reasonably and responsibly to protect their proprietary information as soon as they discovered it had been disclosed by investigating, sending cease and desist letters all over the world and then filing suit against those who refused within two months of the disclosure. The Court is satisfied that trade secret status has not been destroyed."
Now the whole point of trade secrets is that you have to keep them secret. The judge here is apparently saying that he doesn't care that the material has already been downloaded by everyone and their grandmother. He is basically pulling the judicial equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and going "Neener neener I can't hear you."
Even more weirdly, he cites RTC v. Netcom, where the judge came to an entirely different conclusion, though stating that he was "troubled" by it.
"While the Internet has not reached the status where a temporary posting on a newsgroup is akin to publication in a major newspaper or on a television network, those with an interest in using the Church's trade secrets to compete with the Church are likely to look to the newsgroup. Thus, posting works to the Internet makes them "generally known" to the relevant people -- the potential "competitors" of the Church. The court is troubled by the notion that any Internet user, including those using "anonymous remainers" [sic] [29] to protect their identity, can destroy valuable intellectual property rights by posting them over the Internet, especially given the fact that there is little opportunity to screen postings before they are made."
The "Church" referenced is, of course, Scientology.
1. OS (DOS, Windows operating environment, NT)
This corporation gets Bill Gates' ego, and his stroke video collection, as well as his white persian cat and monocle.
2. Applications (Office, Games, Wordpad, Solitaire and other apps that are now included in the Windows operating environment)
This company gets the Jolt cola supplies. It also gets all the paperclips, and all the unsold copies of Microsoft Bob.
3. Media (MSNBC, MSN (including Hotmail), MicrosoftPress)
This one gets Steve Ballmer's teeth.