Re:Well they did sign an agreement
on
Launchcast Sued
·
· Score: 1
Launch COULD have signed something saying that, but it is much more likely that they signed something that didn't even address the possibility of interactivity at all and the RIAA is saying "Hey, you can't do that" after the fact.
Why would Launch go through the trouble of obtaining the licenses, if they were only going to knowingly violate them?
so cross-platform tools like Wine, VMWare, Virtual PC etc. are all infringing the copyrights of Windows-only software? Should links to them be banned? Maybe we should sue magazines that provide that information, or websites that sell T-shirts supporting them. Or maybe you should lay off of the Valenti crack pipe.
Some may say that I am giving 2600 too much altruistic credit, but here is my interpretation of 2600's motives, which would fall under an example of source code as expressive content and protected speech. Even if this is not entirely 2600's motives, they could be someones, so the example is still valid.
2600 publishes news articles of interest to "hackers" (define that as you like). A teenager in Norway is put into jail BECAUSE OF A US LAW over a software program that he wrote that was accused of being a piracy tool.
Websites publishing the program are being threatened by the MPAA's vast army of lawyers for violating a controversial and possibly ambiguous clause in the DMCA (after all, if it requires this much litigation, it must require the courts to clarify some issues)
2600 writes a news article reporting these facts and editorializing that these are examples of why the DMCA is a bad law (last time I checked, freedom of the press included politial commentary). They furthermore assert that DeCSS isn't even designed or well-suited for piracy. They include the binary program so readers can see for themselves what it does and if they think it is a piracy tool. Posting or linking to the source code also acheives this goal, somewhat better, although only to those who can read C.
Viewed in this light, posting DeCSS is a political argument. Without it, the public would have to rely on 2600's or the MPAA's interpretation of what the program actually does and what is is capable of. It was a real-world example of the kinds of things subject to attack by the DMCA. Are examples of legally-questionable actions illegal? What if 2600 had posted a hypothetical program (maybe even an algorhythm) of a program whose function was 100% within the realm of fair use, but might be viewed as a violation of the DMCA? What about all the hypothetical situations the MPAA is throwing around? I believed DeCSS to be totally useless in the area of piracy before the MPAA introduced me to DIVIX. What if I was a pirate? The court transcrips instructed me precisely on how to use these tools to commit wholesale piracy. My having these instructions is no more dangerous to their income than my having the source to DeCSS. On the internet, telling someone about something is the same as distributing it. The MPAA distributed information on how to pirate a DVD, just as 2600 distributed information on how to break a DVD's encryption. The DMCA magically makes one illegal and the other not. Just because they may not understand the source does not make it any more of HOWTO on crime than their step-by-step walkthrough and demonstration (which was expressive AND functional).
Meta discussions of law have to be protected speech. They are one of the principle reasons we have freedom of speech. 2600 posted DeCSS for these reasons. Even if you don't trust 2600's motives, the argument still stands. Someone could post some program as part of an argument against a law they felt was unconstitutional.
I purchased a book entitled 'The Big Black Book of Computer Viruses'. It contains x86 assembler code to a great number of viruses. Although most are obsolete now they weren't when I obtained the book. Far from being a script-kiddie's cookbook, it discusses the often-ignored capabilities of computer programs. Personally, it was the best tutor in Assembly I've ever had. The store legally sold the book to me. The publisher legally distributed it to them. If viruses, possibly the most destructive programs, and certainly the most publicly-feared ones, can be distributed legally then why not DeCSS?
I also legally obtained, own and operate three, count 'em (3) crowbars.
Slashdot Mirror
Launch COULD have signed something saying that, but it is much more likely that they signed something that didn't even address the possibility of interactivity at all and the RIAA is saying "Hey, you can't do that" after the fact.
Why would Launch go through the trouble of obtaining the licenses, if they were only going to knowingly violate them?
so cross-platform tools like Wine, VMWare, Virtual PC etc. are all infringing the copyrights of Windows-only software? Should links to them be banned? Maybe we should sue magazines that provide that information, or websites that sell T-shirts supporting them. Or maybe you should lay off of the Valenti crack pipe.
Some may say that I am giving 2600 too much altruistic credit, but here is my interpretation of 2600's motives, which would fall under an example of source code as expressive content and protected speech. Even if this is not entirely 2600's motives, they could be someones, so the example is still valid.
2600 publishes news articles of interest to "hackers" (define that as you like). A teenager in Norway is put into jail BECAUSE OF A US LAW over a software program that he wrote that was accused of being a piracy tool.
Websites publishing the program are being threatened by the MPAA's vast army of lawyers for violating a controversial and possibly ambiguous clause in the DMCA (after all, if it requires this much litigation, it must require the courts to clarify some issues)
2600 writes a news article reporting these facts and editorializing that these are examples of why the DMCA is a bad law (last time I checked, freedom of the press included politial commentary). They furthermore assert that DeCSS isn't even designed or well-suited for piracy. They include the binary program so readers can see for themselves what it does and if they think it is a piracy tool. Posting or linking to the source code also acheives this goal, somewhat better, although only to those who can read C.
Viewed in this light, posting DeCSS is a political argument. Without it, the public would have to rely on 2600's or the MPAA's interpretation of what the program actually does and what is is capable of. It was a real-world example of the kinds of things subject to attack by the DMCA. Are examples of legally-questionable actions illegal? What if 2600 had posted a hypothetical program (maybe even an algorhythm) of a program whose function was 100% within the realm of fair use, but might be viewed as a violation of the DMCA? What about all the hypothetical situations the MPAA is throwing around? I believed DeCSS to be totally useless in the area of piracy before the MPAA introduced me to DIVIX. What if I was a pirate? The court transcrips instructed me precisely on how to use these tools to commit wholesale piracy. My having these instructions is no more dangerous to their income than my having the source to DeCSS. On the internet, telling someone about something is the same as distributing it. The MPAA distributed information on how to pirate a DVD, just as 2600 distributed information on how to break a DVD's encryption. The DMCA magically makes one illegal and the other not. Just because they may not understand the source does not make it any more of HOWTO on crime than their step-by-step walkthrough and demonstration (which was expressive AND functional).
Meta discussions of law have to be protected speech. They are one of the principle reasons we have freedom of speech. 2600 posted DeCSS for these reasons. Even if you don't trust 2600's motives, the argument still stands. Someone could post some program as part of an argument against a law they felt was unconstitutional.
I purchased a book entitled 'The Big Black Book of Computer Viruses'. It contains x86 assembler code to a great number of viruses. Although most are obsolete now they weren't when I obtained the book. Far from being a script-kiddie's cookbook, it discusses the often-ignored capabilities of computer programs. Personally, it was the best tutor in Assembly I've ever had. The store legally sold the book to me. The publisher legally distributed it to them. If viruses, possibly the most destructive programs, and certainly the most publicly-feared ones, can be distributed legally then why not DeCSS?
I also legally obtained, own and operate three, count 'em (3) crowbars.