News.com Links to DeCSS Program

zorglubxx writes "In less than a week News.com has published 2 articles ([Oct 3] and [Oct 7]) talking about copyright law and the DMCA where they LINK to DeCSS. Not source but compiled Windows version called DeCSS.exe. News.com know that 2600 lost their fight for linking to DeCSS so I wonder why they are doing this. Trying to make a point? Civil disobedience? An honest mistake?" Update: 10/08 02:51 GMT by T : An anonymous reader writes "In the time between when I read the first and second referenced articles, the links were updated to point the DeCSS gallery rather than DeCSS.exe"

Free Jon Johansen!

[RPoet]

Here in Norway, DeCSS co-author Jon Johansen has become somewhat of an icon in the fight for rights in the digital age. There's an interview with him here [linuxworld.com], in which he speaks about how he got involved with DeCSS, and the whole thing about the controversion trial. Also, the EFF [eff.org] has supported him tremendously with legal assistance. Their official Jon Johansen page is here [eff.org].

It is NOT illegal to link to DeCSS

[bwt]

Sometimes I wonder if, for all the extensive coverage of the 2600 trial, if people have any clue what exactly happened.

2600 and 2600 only are not allowed to link to DeCSS, not because of the DMCA directly, but because of the judicial injunction. It is a punishment for the specific defendent. The appeals court explicitly noted that the 2600 linking ban could withstand scrutiny only because it was specific to the defendent and occured after a trial.

Re:Exploiting Different Standards?

[ravi_n]

cnn.com did link to DeCSS at one point. When people noticed, and pointed out how hypocritical this was the link was taken down, of course.

Sources and otther DeCSS Goodies

[haplo21112]

http://jult.net/dvd/
Chop a few words off the end and go browsing...have fun....:>

Re:Exploiting Different Standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sara,

For future reference please note that in articles about Napster and copyprotected CD's the RIAA is the enemy. In articles about DeCSS the MPAA is the enemy.

Thanks.

Wired has also linked DeCSS in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

While it was a hot topic too (May 2, 2001).
http://wired.com/news/print/0,1294,43485,00.html [wired.com]

Trying to squelch the media is much harder than squelching 2600, they can make their case known to the general public at large.

-Insani Kamil

Re:Exploiting Different Standards?

[ackthpt]

Seriously, if CNN.com would have originally linked to DeCSS do you think it would have gotten sued?

You bet they'd get sued. CBS, ABC, NBC, et al get served on a regular basis, sometimes for being unwitting, others for a clear display of corporate disobedience. 60 Minutes, a CBS program, has been the target of many such. Sadly, they've toned down their desire to lock horns (probably advice from their legal department to the producer, i.e. "The show is getting expensive to defend, stop revealing damning things about people and businesses.")

Regarding the original post:

Trying to make a point? Civil disobedience? An honest mistake?"

Yes, Declan makes clear his position:

he copyright clause, which gives Congress the power to create copyright laws for a limited time, and the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from curtailing speech or expression.

The Appeals Court didn't pay sufficient attention. This time, let's hope the justices do.

I don't think a clue-by-four could make his position anymore clear.

Re:innocent?

[Arker]

I don't know why it's PEShielded, that is odd. But if you're worried you can just use the source [jult.net] instead.

Most likely NOT an accident

[XbainX]

Most /.'ers have probably seen the name Declan McCullagh (the author of the articles) around. As previously mentioned, an editor could've added the link, but... Based on Declan's history, it's quite possible the linking to the DeCSS executable is just an example of how the DMCA is ridiculous.

As for the negative assumption that the author or editor who included the link will be fired, I doubt it. It's definetly a possibility, but I think News.com would rather keep the publicity in the case that some trouble happens.

This is proven illegal in Denmark...

[dmouritsendk]

Back in 1999, a whole bunch record companies(including sony, virgin, warner etc.(their Danish departments)) sued two Danish guys for maintaining a list of links to MP3 files from their web site.

The weird thing about this case was that all the focus was on the guys maintaining a link list, none of the sites who actually committed the crimes was sued(meaning the sites who actually did the ripping and hosting of the music).

I can understand why they sued the linking guys, BUT(huuuuge but) they should have went for a site shutdown plus maybe a minor fine. They didn't, they sued them for lost profit. Which is the exact same paragraphs that you would get sued by if you copied/ripped the music.

The whole case was build around they where linking directly to the mp3 files(hosted on various warez sites), and they eventually got them convicted(to pay 100000 DKr(roughly 12500$)) on this fact. This of course, effectively meaning that linking directly to illegal files is, here in little old Denmark, considered as serious a offences as making the files available.

So if CNET was doing this in Denmark, they could be in trouble.

If any of you read Danish, you can find the complete court transcript here:
http://sql.dklaw.dk/vl-dom/

Re:Exploiting Different Standards?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Seriously, if CNN.com would have originally linked to DeCSS do you think it would have gotten sued?"

No. Wired [wired.com] has done it too.

Why DeCSS is protected speech.

[SETIGuy]

Regardless of the decision of Judge Kaplan in the 2600 case, DeCSS is protected speech, so long as it is posted for reasons recognized as protected speech. These include, but are not limited to:

• Posting DeCSS as journalistic material as part of a news article.
• Posting DeCSS as a form of political protest.
• Using DeCSS as educational material.

It's unfortunate that 2600 dropped the case. BTW, personal favorite DeCSS site is here [cmu.edu].

Re:14th Amendment?

[bkocik]

This'll be a little off-topic I suppose, but what the hell. Karma is pretty useless anyways.

Now, a literal reading might allow the federal government to be unfair, while requiring fairness from state governments, but I cannot imagine even our frighteningly corrupt supreme court interpreting the clause in such a fashion.

Why not? They've done it before (well, the opposite, actually). In 1873, as part of the Slaughter-House cases (independent butchers sued the city of New Orleans over the granting of a monopoly on slaughtering rights to some company) the Court declared that national citizenship and state citizenship are two different things. They further stated that national citizenship only had bearing on matters such as interstate travel, and use of waterways. In effect, they removed the protection that was granted to everyone (specifically, this was intended for freed slaves, but it applied to all citizens) by the 14th amendment for almost all matters.

The very next day they used the same arguments to deny a female attorney's right to practice law in the state of Illinois. The state disallowed her, she asserted her 14th amendment rights, and the Supreme Court stripped them away, alluding to a woman's "traditional place in the home".

It gets worse. In 1876 they overturned the conviction of a group of white supremacists that had violently attacked an assembly of blacks, stating that the "equal protection" clause of the amendment didn't apply at the federal level. Only the states could enforce it (it goes back to that national vs. state citizenship thing).

So, yeah, the Supreme Court has shown a willingness to interpret the Constitution in pretty much whatever way will best serve it's political objectives of the day going back a long ways. In the late 19th century, those objectives included white male supremacy.

Re:14th Amendment?

[Eppie]

You're right. The 14th Amendment's due process clause does not apply to the federal govennment. That does not, however, mean we're out of luck when the feds discriminate between similarly situated citizens. The fifth amendment's due process clause (which applies to the federal government) has been held to grant equal protection. See Bolling v. Sharpe [nps.gov]. Bolling was decided the same day as Borwn v. Board of Ed., which declared segregation in public schools a violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. Bolling involved D.C. schools, which are not subject to equal protection restrictions. The Bolling court held that equal protection is an example of due process, and so the federal government must give you equal protection as part of its obligation to give you due process. And the children of D.C. rejoiced.

From the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.