More On Kaplan's Ruling Making Links Illegal 384
Meenik sent us a wired news article on Judge Kaplan's ruling that effectively makes linking things like DeCSS illegal. This is a little bit more extreme of a piece then our coverage
here a few days ago but its worth a read.
Prejudice! (Score:2)
Heh (Score:3)
Q. Does Adrian Bacon read the Linux Advocacy Howto?
A. No. He is too busy reading Slashdot.
hahaha (Score:5)
Hm. My local metropolitan transporation authority (read: public bus) gave some crazy guy a ride to the bus stop in front of my apartment and he broke into my house, so I'm going to sue the transporation authority so they can't actually bring people anywhere, just tell them where to go.
Damn, sometimes I just think that America litigation is there just to provide laughs. Then I realize that it affects me and I wish that we could just some how abolish entities like the MPAA after providing such a stupid and flawed statement and enforcing it in court.
nerdfarm.org [nerdfarm.org]
Linking Illegal? No Problem, If.... (Score:4)
All of these are links, of a different sort - They all point you to products and/or services. Linking to something, even if the "something" is illegal, isn't the point.
Re:UnEnforceable... (Score:2)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Great article, it is about free press, not DeCSS (Score:4)
This case is NOT about the legality of DeCSS, it is about muzzling the press.
First it is 2600 Magazine, next it will be any news organization. All the oppressor has to do is point to this case as a precident.
This ruling MUST be overturned if we are to retain what little freedom we *think* that we have left.
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
Ostrich? (Score:4)
Now that linking is illegal, what are the ramifications for print materials? This seems to say that a writer writing a book about a fictional drug dealer is unable to go speak with real ones. That is the real life equivalent of linking. A sports writer writing about the effects of certain kinds of steroids will be unable to list his sources, because listing a source is the print equivalent of a link.
How many levels of linkage does this ruling apply to? If my Japanese counterpart makes a page of links to illegal things, and then I link to that page, is that illegal? What if someone links to my page? Are they responsible, too?
--Jeff
Oh Crap! (Score:4)
HELP! HELP! I'm being redressed!
The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196
Re:But does it apply to all hyperlinks? (Score:3)
Um, huh?
I didn't know we were talking about a 'device'.
And as far as I knew, DeCSS was created so that someone could view a legally purchased DVD on a non-Windows computer. Unless of course you swallowed the other side's story hook line and sinker.
I guess we should know by now that the government, and the judicial system, are there to protect the poor little business from us big bad and nasty consumers that actually want to use the products we purchase. Silly me.
Damn you Kaplan... (Score:3)
Now I'm two clicks away from DeCSS, damn!
When links are outlawed... (Score:2)
Just a quick question (Score:2)
So far as I can tell the ruling doesn't say anything about what other people or even AC's post. Just that the site is resposible. Tell me I'm wrong.
Other coverage (Score:4)
- ZDNet: Decision is "Shocking" [zdnet.com]
- San Jose Mercury News: DMCA comes back to haunt consumers [sjmercury.com]
And so on. Also, Emmanuel Goldstein posted his comments [2600.com] on the decision on 2600 a couple days ago (I'm not sure if that's showed up onRe:hahaha (Score:2)
It is! It's just that it's there to provide laughs for people elsewhere, not in America.
Apologies in advance (Score:2)
John: This is my favorite part. I love how the phone glues to his head.
Marsha: Eww...
(There is a knock at the door)
John: Now who could that be. (opens the door) Can I help you?
MPAA Cop (He is a tall man with a russian accent): Your papers. Show us your papers.
John: Uh.. what papers.
MPAA Cop: I grow impatient. You are using a DVD and therefore are using our decryption process. Your papers now. I want to see your license agreement.
John: Well, it's rented.
(The cop motions to a man behind him, the man pulls out a gun and holds it to John's head)
John: HEY! WHAT THE (the cop hits him across the face)
MPAA Cop: I tire of your insolence. If you do not show me your papers then I am authorized to shoot you.
(Marsha suddenly emerges beside the door, holding an AK-47, she kicks the gun out of the second man's hand and shoots them both.)
Marsha: I never wanted to shoot them... I never wanted to be a criminal by watching a movie... I just wanted to be... to be... a LUMBERJACK!
*insert stupid song here*
don't expect this to make it past the supreme cour (Score:2)
If this changes and I doubt it will. It will do nothing but force people who want/need knowledge pertaining to these subjects underground.
Aaron Bryden
an interesting correlation.... (Score:5)
OK, in the wake of this decision that everyone is obviously upset with, I figured I would throw something else into the fray here. With this recent ruling, we have found out that it is now illegal to even link to a site with illegal information (or at least information which is the property of big corporations who have alot of money and interests to protect). This is a very interesting ruling and sets quite the precedent, which could come into play very soon.
The questioning over links to illegal material is not a new one. The biggest example that I can think of here would be the Napster cases. They are effectively in trouble because they are providing links to illegally copied material. Not only has Napster gotten in trouble for this now, but 2600 has as well. I think we are starting to see a trend here.
Not only is it now illegal to carry the illegal information in the Unites States, but it is illegal to link to said illegal information. An interesting implication of this would be banner ads. What do you do when a child is using the computer and "subjected" to all the porn that they innevitably are (note the dripping of sarcasm). If this porn is provided through a banner add, that page has effectively become illegal. Who is to blame for this if the banner is supplied dynamically, the provider or the page owner?
Also, does anybody know how this works in physical print? What is the punishment for containing information on obtaining illegal information? Can you get in trouble if you write a letter to the editor which contains directions to a cache of kiddie porn? Where is this line drawn?
Exposure? (Score:2)
The whole thing just makes me sad and cynical. You ask questions like "What if they link to another site that links to DeCSS?" "Where do you draw the line?" "Can Wired be busted for linking to 2600?" or you point out how stupid Valenti's car-driving metaphor is, but nobody cares except the other complainers.
You can't ask these questions of MPAA or Kaplan and expect an answer. And the other complainers can't do anything about it.
Sigh. Maybe I'm just depressed today or something.
Freedom of Speech, et al (Score:5)
First of all, I'd like to just say I'm grinning wildly at 2600's response. "Oh, we can't have it hyperlinked? That's okay, we'll just make it inline text." Following the letter of the law, gotta love it.
It never ceases to amaze me how we, the 'net users, are constantly subject to laws created by people that rarely use the internet to do more than scan porn sites and read their email. (Yes, I am talking about the judges, politicians, etc.) Perhaps we are the ones who are causing them to fear what they do not know, however they will never understand their impact unless they bother to learn something.
The internet is possibly the truest form of anarchy (yes, you've heard this before, bear with me) and that terrifies the hell out of these old people in control. We have a system in place that there is no true way to regulate. If we don't like the rules for .uk or .au, we'll just take our domain to .it. There is no way for them to have a law that all countries will agree upon. IMO, the United States is becoming more of a dictatorship when it comes to the Internet than most of the other countries.
As long as these old men (and women) and companies/industries are in control, there will never be a law passed for the Internet that actually protects the individual users. The internet is a communication interface. I wish they would learn to treat it like one.
It has been said that there needs to be a revolution every ten years in order to keep the government honest. I think we're long overdue.
--Lise
Re:Damn you Kaplan... (Score:2)
Right click.
Copy.
Right click.
Paste.
Press enter.
I count at least five clicks, a button on the keyboard, and a drag (unless you're using IE5 and the Go button, in which case that's six clicks and a drag).
h0u5t0n, w3 hav3 a pr0813m (Score:2)
Now I have to copy the link and paste it into the address window?
How are all the script kiddies gonna crack their anime dvd's?
Wait... (Score:5)
I've got the sales website right now:
Here's a black box with somehting in it that costs $25.00. Here is another made by our competitor that costs $50.00. We'd tell you what it is that we're selling, but you might figure out what our competitor's product is, recognize that one of us is giving a better deal and that would hurt one of our's business... We would tell you what our company is, but then you might know who are competitors are, so we can't even tell you that, and then you might show a preference towards one of us. So all we'll tell you is that we've got a product, and it's for sale. Please send cash to:
P.O. Box XXXXX
Anytown, NJ
and we promise we'll send you whatever our product is.
I've got it... rather than use the internet to spread information, lets restrict it in such a way that no useful information can be obtained.
This vaguely reminds me of something I would see on a Monty Python skit.
Re:Damn you Kaplan... (Score:2)
But at least that keeps 2600 from being sued by Amazon too!
--
How is this legal? (Score:2)
-
In May, Microsoft demanded that links to a copy of its Kerberos source code be removed from a discussion forum.
Hey! - That us!Seriously - can anyone explain how this is legal in any way at all?
-
Kaplan's ruling, legal experts say, appears to be an unprecedented expansion of traditional copyright law.
I thought that the whole point in having a seperate legislature and judiciary, was that the people who set the law, and the people who apply the law are different. It looks like the judge is making up his own laws to me, and un-constitutional laws at that.However, the thing that I have most problem with is how the law is being changed, not that it is being changed at all.
Any lawyers out there? What would be the legal position if I sold a phonebook of illegal gun traffickers? Would I be breaking any laws?
cheers,
G
Reality Check, Please? (Score:2)
A man was recently sentenced to 4 years in prison for having sex with a horse. (As Leno said, when will people learn that neigh means neigh?). It may have been on his own property with a horse he owned, but still he got sentenced to prison for it. The US is not -completely- free, nor does it people want that much freedom
Here, there are people linking to matterial that, while it is technical and good hearted in it's nature and motives (okay, so not entirely), it is, like it or not, illegal material. Just as links to kitty porn and maps that show where hemp is being grown is. And standing out in the middle of the street naked is illegal to. The nudity thing is covered by other laws, but the DMCA was passes to put certain limits on what can legally be done by internet users, limits primarily desigined to uphold copyrights in the digital scheme of things.
To understand the government's point of view, you must look at several things.
1) The people are the government in the US, where majority rules. (Lobbying doesn't do sh!t, btw, I don't care what you hippies say.)
2) The internet is a form of a public utility, grown in the mysterious space where ownership is shared among the government and the telecommunictaions industry. Because the wires are laid over government land, the government has regulatory final say over everything that goes on over that network. And while first ammendment rights are on loan to a good deal of these utilities, the government reserves the right to impose restrictions of your rights in this area. This is what makes the DMCA possible.
3) Linking to illegal material makes you a criminal, at least in an accessorary way. Sorta like being the guy who hires a hitman to take out your enemy, but a much with less at stake.
"Your rights online" has always stuck me as something ridiculous for a title of this section. We have as many rights on the internet as we would inside of a government building, say the white house. To all governemnt lands are open to the public, and the government is free to restrict access in whatever way it wants to, and this power was granted to the governement from the very begining. People do, of course, have a say in it all. Ever see a city try to annex a suburban area? Not always an easy task, usually something determined by the public. If the public wants more rights and more freedom on the internet.... well, it shouldn't have voted to administration that pushed the DMCA through into office in the first place.
DeCSS meets MP3 battle (Score:4)
driving to a house to burglarize it (Score:2)
Well. Here we go with linking to DeCSS is like driving a burglar to the scene of the crime. Hence it follows that downloading DeCSS is like burglarizing a house. Hence downloading DeCSS is like permenently taking things that don't belong to you. Do I need to point out that its a bad analogy?
So why don't we say something like: driving a burglar to a hardware store where he can legitimatly purchace the tools he intends to use for his future crime. Lets say they're lock-picks. That likens downloading DeCSS with legally aquiring a set of lock-picks, and this only brings into question as to whether getting lock-picks should be legal. I'd say yes, but that doesn't seem to matter.
Lastly, I think a more accurate analogy would be driving an interested party to a library with full knowlege that he'll read about burglarizing techniques and how a tool he already owns (a computer in DeCSS's case) may be employed in such a process. Oh no! the party is gaining information that could be used towards either a crime or to preventing future crimes. Well this is just too accurately mushy for legal grounds, so we'd better make the case a bit harder huh.
But maybe I should point out that this book doesn't really inform anyone about stealing anything, rather it informs them how they can get access to something they have license to, such that they might (or not) distribute it to persons without such a license. Since this could be done the old fasioned way of copying the enitre data on the disc (if one had the equipment), how is it suddenly such a bigger crime?
-Daniel
Analogies (Score:2)
"This is just like someone driving you to another person's home to burglarize it."
Or:
"This is just like
The danger lies in these stupid analogies that everyone is trying to use. I mean, I don't know if this the case or not -- but is it possible that what's going on here -- linking to DeCSS, sharing music with Napster -- is it just possible that, well, this sort of stuff isn't really analagous to other non-internet things?
I don't mean this as flamebait or a troll. I'm serious: couldn't this one of those odd moments where everything that we're talking about *can't* be reduced to some cut-and-dried analogy because, well, this kind of stuff is really "like" nothing we've ever seen before?
Re:Damn you Kaplan... (Score:5)
> > DeCSS. But they left the non-HTML versions of the
> > addresses intact, so visitors can simply copy and paste
> > them into a browser window. >
> Now I'm two clicks away from DeCSS, damn!
Wait a minute.
Corley took down the links to DeCSS, but left the text versions intact. Fair enough.
But for Wired to tell someone how to cut-and-paste the text versions of the URLs into a browser window, why, that's like giving a map to the guy who's driving the burglar to your back door, and Wired should be sued into oblivion for it!
And you, you, you bastard, you had the gall not only to steal Wired's intellectual property (in the old days before DMCA, we called it "quoting from an article), why, that's like making a photocopy of a map that someone gives to the guy who's driving the burglar to your back door! And you even said that it was a matter of two mouse clicks (well, three if I had to read your post first!) to get to it! You thief! Murderer! Copyright Terrorist!
So now there's these guys in black suits telling me that for making my photocopy of your photocopy of the map that...
Protest? (Score:2)
Re:Any soothsayers? (Score:4)
So? From where I sit, I can't tell the difference between Kaplan's head and his ass either.
Card catalogues in libraries (Score:3)
1) I live just down the street from a major university. This university has numerous libraries; each contains countless books detailing criminal acts. Some of these libraries include war crime archives - we're not just talking about offing your neighbor here!
2) The library conveniently provides a card catalogue to enable me to quickly identify where to find books detailing poisons, explosives, etc., plus law books that will give me case histories (in the law library) that can help me avoid detection and escape conviction.
3) Since the University benefits from my presence (they charge me to park my car in their lot, depend on citizens like me to defend their cut of the state income tax, etc.), they "vicariously" benefit from any criminal act I perform.
4) The University also knows that Congress wants to criminalize all chemistry textbooks (lest they be used to produce explosives - never mind what that will do to the chemistry, medical and pharmist training), so they must be aware that the information in this library can be used to commit crime - YET THEY DO NOTHING!
5) Therefore, by this reasoning, the University has a duty to burn its card catalogue, remove the dedicated terminals that provide access to the online card catalogue (and, in fact, has superceded it - the last time I was in the library they were using old card catalogue 'cards' as scratch paper), pull the plug on the internet interface to that same online card catalogue, and randomize the location of all books in the library.
Thank God the freshmen just arrived. They always seem to be good at randomizing stuff on campus.
Re:an interesting correlation.... (Score:2)
In the US, at least, freedom of speech is valued enough that pretty much anything is allowed to be printed. A good example would be Loompanics [loompanics.com] who published such things as the original Anarchist's Cookbook, and other devious materials.
I think that the linking is a sub-issue raised by this case. The real debate is about whether or not code is speech. If Kaplan thought that all computer code counted as such, then it would be free and under the same provisions as Loompanic's mischevious manuals, or books on illegal drugs like PIHKAL. (try Erowid [erowid.org] for more info.) However, he is clearly of the opinion that the source code is not speech like a book, but is something else (or more likely Kaplan is not computer-savvy enough to grasp the difference between source code and an actual program).
If I was as cynical now as I was in high-school, I would add: Big business won even though they weren't actually right. Welcome to America.
peas,
-Kabloona
Hey wait a minute... (Score:2)
If it becomes illegal to link to copyrighted material... Isn't the MPAA's web site copyrighted? Let's all file a class action lawsuit against all sites containing a link to the MPAA! We'd be doing them a favor!
Gonzo
A Little clarification (Score:2)
Anyway, as far as the judge was concerned, DeCSS was designed to copy discs. This does suggest that he slept through half the preceedings, but this was pretty much what he ruled. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, DeCSS is a device that circumvents copy protection. Maybe he didn't rule it was a device, but thats a nitpick.
My point was simply that the ruling doesn't make all links to DeCSS illegal. It does make linking for the purpose of distributing DeCSS illegal. Search engines are not trying to distribute it. They're neutral. 2600 were. They weren't just trying to helpfully explain what they weren't allowed to distribute. They were trying to distribute it. It doesn't matter what you or I believe DeCSS was created for. As far as the law is concerned its there to steal from, murder, and destroy the movie industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Protests (Score:2)
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
Re:One Judge... (Score:4)
Re:hahaha (Score:2)
Boy, that analogy just seems so ridiculous after I type it out. But I'm not the one that came up with it, or tried to make a legal precedent out of it.
Re:hahaha (Score:3)
Contempt of Court (Score:2)
Oh well. The reason we have an appeals process is so that when acts of blatant idiocy like this occur, they can be overturned.
I rather doubt that any of this lower-court idiocy would survive higher court scrutiny. The first ammendment implications should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. It's pretty much expected that the small fry officials can be bought and sold, fortunately the higher courts still seem to have some integrity left.
Of course, it's becoming obvious that the IP and Copyright regulations are in need of a massive overhaul. Perhaps a summit is in order....
Ack! (Score:2)
Holy crap, guys, what WON'T they be able to do now?
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
Will MPAA and DVD-CCA sue search engines? (Score:2)
A quick search for 'DeCSS source code' on Google shows that the DeCSS source code can be downloaded from literally dozens of places, many of which are outside the US.
It seems like every time they try to remove content from the web like this, it just pops back up somewhere else, and often more of it than before.
If they can't get the search engines not to return hits on searches, will MPAA or DVD-CCA try to shut down every web site that is found in the search engines, even those outside the US?
Here comes the Mafia! (Score:3)
Before Nixon criminalized marijuana:
Pot is distributed (and imported) by stoner college kids.
After Nixon criminalized marijuana:
Pot is distributed through the good offices of those organizations that specialize in dealing with the high risks associated with apprehension and imprisonment, namely, organized crime.
Before DCMA/Judge Kaplan:
Arguably naughty software is obtained by following a link to a server where the software is stored.
After DCMA/Judge Kaplan/other brilliant jurists who follow the reasoning in the 2600 decision:
Arguably naughty software gets distributed through the good offices of those organizations that specialize in dealing with the high risks associated with apprehension and imprisonment, namely, organized crime.
Coincidence? We'll see.
yeah it "views" real well (Score:2)
"The only good thing about the unauthorized copy is that you avoid giving money to the owner. This is good, because the owner does not deserve a reward for making software proprietary."
http://tlug.linux.or.jp/rms.html
Theres the interview to back it up. RMS advocates breaking the law.
What I found even stranger... (Score:3)
Do those who browse the websites infringe plaintiff's copyright?
Blah, blah, blah, copyright stuff, and then:
See MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that when material is transferred to a computer's RAM, copying has occurred; in the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by license, such an act constitutes copyright infringement)
Whoah. So if open Slashdot, and someone posted some DeCSS code, automagically I'm a copyright infringer? But then...
Marobie-FL., Inc. v. National Ass'n Fire Equip. Distrib., 983 F.Supp. 1167, 1179 (N.D.Ill. 1997) (noting that liability for copyright infringement is with the persons who cause the display or distribution of the infringing material onto their computer)
Oooooh. This must mean that if I open up, let's say, the Louvre's webpage, and I open up a page with the Mona Lisa, and since I do not own the Mona Lisa and as far as I know I dont have express permission by license, then I'm a copyright infringer?
Finally, it is in the public's interest to protect the copyright laws and the interests of copyright holders.
And you wonder why people don't like big corporations and their lawyers...
Inch by Inch, step by step! We must fight! (Score:2)
We must fight this and any infringment on our freedoms or we lose them!
It does makes a _little_ sense.. (Score:2)
I don't like being the devil's advocate, but a few weeks ago I did come up with a thought that could be used to argue that there can indeed be legal action against a person linking to deCSS or something similar:
Not the link itself would be the problem, but the implicated participance in the crime (that of distributing the stuff).
Compare it with the drugs dealer next door [if applicable]. Pointing at the house saying "there is a drugs dealer there" is perfectly legal. Cheering at the beauty of cocaine and putting a sign in your yard saying "Want some cocaine? I can cut you in on a good deal" and then directing people to your neighbours house.. that's a different story.
You are perfectly allowed to do that, free speech is unharmed. But it could implicate that you have some involvement.
Perhaps a bit thin, but I cannot find any flaws in this reasoning other than the grey area to find out what exactly would qualify as involvement.
I can now imagine why a link called "Fsck the MPAA, get deCSS" would be judged as involvement in the act of distributing and thus has a basis for legal action.
Dangerous Precidents (Score:2)
I was reading Richard Feynman's The Meaning of it All and he had a great bit of wisdom at the end of his second chapter. Granted, it was in reference to the Russians, but its applicable nwo, and I quote:
Man has been stopped before by stopping his ideas. Man has been jammed for long periods of time. We will not tolerate this. I hope for freedom for future generations - freedom to doubt, to develop, to continue the adventure of finding out new ways of doing things, of solving problems.
Why do we grapple with problems? We are only in the beginning. We have plenty of time to solve the problems. The only way that we will make a mistake is that ithe impetuous youth of humanity we will decide we know the answer. This is it. No one else can think of anything else. And we will jam. We will confine man to the limited imagination of today's human beings. "
Read him. Understand this, and wake up. This is too scary when the censorship gets close enough that I can feel it. Feynman understood it in the 60's.
The can of worms or the barn door has been opened. (Score:2)
How long 'til we have 20,000 lawsuits preventing the linking to a whole host of 'objectionable' material (as define by those who have the desire to file a lawsuit, which could be just about anyone, I guess.)
All those wonderful non-techinical people who are supplying the power behind these lawsuits are finally going to really bump up against the realities of the internet, mainly that you can't make information go away, not matter how many people you sue. It has progressed to the point that they are dealing with the very fabric of the web, which is irreducible. You can not take hyper-links out of the web. You can't sue or buy them away.
I think this is VERY significant becuase it is no longer about just the content of one entity on the web, it's about the way the web works. Try to make one 'topic' illegal to link to, then watch the flood. The legal system -should- quickly realize how incredible unenforcible and rediculous this is.
This actually kinda makes me feel good... I'm glad this was part of the ruling, 'cause it's a mile-stone... and once we get over this hurdle, and it is realized that you just can't stop hyper-linking, it will be one more legal battle the web will have taken care of.
Re:But does it apply to all hyperlinks? (Score:2)
CSS has little to nothing to do with copy protection, even if you're not just talking about Cascading Style Sheets.
If you have a DVD-R drive (About $3000 from Philips) and the appopriate software, you can copy a DVD. This copy will play just fine.
CSS is uses to prevent you from playing a region X disc in a region Y player, and to prevent you from playing any DVD in a non-licensed player. Only licensed players are allowed to use CSS. The people who invented CSS never dreamt that it would not be reverse-engineered; Any good assembly programmer could pull that off, and probably lots of other people besides. They are however forced to pretend that they thought CSS was good for something.
stifling free speech, and gnutella as a browser (Score:2)
Second: Is this the first step before they try to ban posting a URL? Because honestly, is there even a point to banning a link when people can cut and paste? What would happen if a browser automatically converted an "http://" string into a link? Would that be a legal link, or make the plaintext URL posted into an illegal activity? And finally, isn't it easy to see the relation between this and a journalist getting arrested because they listed the address of a crackhouse. (Clearly promoting the sale of illicit drugs)
Third: Having not yet used gnutella, but knowing its operation in theory, I wonder if you could tag documents, release them over gnutella, and have a type of linking system where you could easily "browse" by hooking into the gnutella framework. Publish a webpage, and it is anonymous and uncensorable? I can't even imagine how the MPAA sleeps nights. Has anyone done this yet?
Re:Heh (Score:2)
In fact, given what it produces, I'm not sure there is much difference to tell between his head and his ass.
Hey Judge! You just passed a ruling that might allow (to use a hypothetical example) "http://www.dumbfuckjudge.com", while forbidding "a href=http://www.dumbfuckjudge.com" in angle brackets. That's the only difference, you moron. Everybody who uses the web at all knows how to paste a text reference, so this doesn't stop anybody, and creates a new restriction that is completely unreasonable. Get off the damned bench! You are a disgrace to American Law.
Personally, I would never consider [lemuria.org] linking to DeCSS, seeing as it has now been made illegal, but I strongly object to this trampling of the First Amendment.
Re:hahaha (Score:2)
So... is this a link??? (Score:2)
Download DeCSS [yucs.org].
This link goes to a CGI which redirects to a random link pulled from 2600's plain text list of links. This means that my site does not contain any DeCSS code, nor does it contain links to DeCSS code. If 2600's page is now legit, then my script links to a legal page. Yet, if you click on the above link, you get code. Hmmm...
Source code here [yucs.org] (warning - I wrote it in about 3 minutes).
Re:When links are outlawed... (Score:2)
--
alternatively... (Score:2)
(Mozilla M18-2000081415)
Re:an interesting correlation.... (Score:2)
Re:But does it apply to all hyperlinks? (Score:2)
I thought that was because the development was started on Windows (something about no access to DVD on alternatives at the time)?
And the rest of your post kind of sounds like it is the perfect way to impress the MPAA. If we have enough people say (paraphrasing your post) "Yeah, I'm gonna rent and copy to CDR" then there will be no reason whatsoever to try and defend the creator of the software.
Would you believe that there are some people that use MP3 for things in a legal way? Yeah, I know, it can't be done. I purchase a CD, rip and MP3 encode it and store the CD in a cabinet. I have done nothing illegal (and this is exactly what I do with every CD I own, and I haven't downloaded any MP3s from bands that don't put them out themselves), yet the record companies would still say that I am using an illegal method of copying. I paid for the music, I didn't sell it afterwards (all of my CDs remain in that cabinet), I'm just listening to it off of a hard drive. And if hard drives were bigger, I would do the same thing with DeCSS and DVDs.
Which brings me to an interesting point. Could the MP3 scare be what caused the MPAA to go out of their collective heads over DeCSS? They didn't want to see something get as ingrained as MP3 currently is before they tried to fight it. The whole thing seems to be crazy. If people want to steal something, they are going to steal it. But you can't make a method of doing something illegal just because it might be used illegally. If that were the case we would all be laying on our backs with our arms and legs cut off, drooling out the side of our mouths. Why, well, because we might use our hands to commit a crime, and we might use our legs to run away from the scene. Gimme a break!
Re:driving to a house to burglarize it (Score:2)
It's more like driving a peeping Tom to the home of the person he wants to peep. You're helping Tom look at something he doesn't have permission to see. The fact that Miss MPAA will show her goodies to anyone willing to pay her is irrelevant to the fact that Tom is still violating her privacy.
Personally, I think the law should be changed so that the data on the DVD belongs to the owner of the DVD and not the studio that made the movie, so the analogy above would become broken. Miss MPAA gave Tom a picture of herself and he can do whatever the heck he wants with it, except distribute copies.
Appeal of Recusal (Score:5)
If/when the 2nd Circuit reviews Kaplan's denial of recusal, I suggest that we submit a brief/petition urging the Appeals court to find that recusal was warrented. If recusal was wrongly denied, all of Kaplan's opinions, decisions, and orders will be vacated. The standard for recusal under 28 USC 455 is:
Note that the standard requires only that "the trial judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned", not that they must be proven. It is a "significan doubt" question.
As a matter of precedent, see the discussion of Republic of Panama v. American Tobacco Company, Inc. No. 99-30685 (5th Cir. 7/20/2000) in a post [harvard.edu] I made on openlaw. In that case a judge whose trial association submitted a brief on a "tobacco matter" in an unrelated case should have recused himself even though he did not take part in writing the brief.
Given these standards, do any of the reaonable people out there have "significant doubt" as to the judge's lack of impartiality?
Re:hahaha (Score:3)
There is a good side to this (Score:2)
Here's to hoping!
Re:Analogy to Burglary (Score:5)
But what you left out is that the home that they want to pick the lock on ("burglarize") is their own. When Valenti accidently locks himself out of his house, he thinks he should have to get authorization from the lock manufacturer before he's allowed to pick his own lock.
It's worse then that. He thinks that he needs to get authorization from the architect who designed his house. In Valentiville, the architect is free to say, "No", in which case, Jack is forbidden by law from ever entering his house again.
So the Search Engines are Violating US Law? (Score:5)
I did a quick search [google.com] on Google (only because it is my favourite search engine) and found links to webpages that (no surprise) contained links to the DeCSS code. I managed to download that code, then deleted it (because I have no particular use for it). I am sure that the same search on any of the other search engines on the web would produce similar results, so I am not singling Google out here.
Does this mean that Google now has to remove keywords or links selectively because the information they are focuses on might violate some ignorant US legal ruling?
If so then this ruling cannot stand or the entire web will come crashing down around Kaplan's ears.
Looks like Roy Rogers was right when he said "This country has the best politicians money can buy". It also ooks like the only reason that Justice is blind is because it has its head up its ass.
Re:hahaha (Score:2)
Re:But does it apply to all hyperlinks? (Score:2)
I wonder if that is really true... I'm sure the people who decided to use CSS never imagined it, but I can't help but suspect that the guy they hired to write it was some bearded, hippie, *nix guru who decided to write an encryption scheme that was just good enough for him to complete the contract and move on to the next job, all the while chuckling under his breath at the thought of how quickly it would come crumbling down.
It reminds me of P.J. O'Rourke's theory about how the Presidential "football" probably can't launch any missiles... Picture this: You are a scientist geek working away in your white lab coat, when a military guy who is just like the kind of person who beat the crap out of you in High School storms in and says "hey four-eyes, build a gadget so the President can blow up the world!" Would you do it? Or would you just fill a box with impressive-looking circuits and a big, red button?
Re:an interesting correlation.... (Score:2)
So I wrote up a list of instructions on "How to use the photocopier" and posted it up in my office. Little did I know that one of my officemates used these instructions to photocopy the entire Encyclopedia Britannica (illegally, I might add!). In fact, soon after that, everyone in my office was into the photocopying craze. So now the powers that be are telling me that I effectively "transported my officemates to someone's home to burgularize it" by posting easy instructions on how to operate the photocopier and I have been asked to take down those instructions.
Of course, I countered with the argument that many other documents were available which told you how to use the photocopier, including one very thorough "Photocopier Manual", but no-one seemed to listen. In fact, I heard that the corporations behind the lawsuit were going to go after the writers of the "Photocopier Manual" later.
Well, after the courts ruled against me, I took down the sheet of instructions, but I copied them onto the wall. That way, people can't take the instructions with them to the photocopier.
Right now, I have a sheet of paper posted in my office with instructions on how to find the photocopier manual. I wonder how long it will be until that is illegal too...
Donny
Re:Reality Check, Please? (Score:3)
The whole point of this case is whether or not DeCSS is illegal or not, though - that issue has not been settled. This most immediate ruling was just an injunction against linking to the code, not a ruling that the code is illegal. Since the code was created via reverse engineering in a country which expressly allows it, I don't see that the illegality of DeCSS is definite. Personally I think it's more likely that the DMCA is unconstitutional than that DeCSS is illegal, but that's just me.
The purpose of the Constitution is to prevent the ill-informed majority or the wealthy minority from dominating the government. The Constitution hasn't come through on this issue yet, but I'm hoping.
Um, no. The U.S. government may have regulatory power over wires which are run within the U.S.. And the U.S. government is bound by the powers enumerated in the Constitution. It is correct to say that Judge Kaplan's decision is an extension to the existing understanding of the Constitution; depending on the results of the legal wrangling it may turn out that the government does not have regulatory power to enforce the DMCA.
It's hardly illegal to tell people that you can get drugs on a street corner downtown. How is it more illegal to tell people that they can download code of questionable (so far) legality from various web sites around the world? And even if it were, is the public benefit of preventing you from passing on that knowledge worth the public cost of the decreased power of journalistic oversight? I bet even the New York Times is quaking in their boots after this ruling, and they're about as establishment as you can get.
In the White House I can tell people that they can get drugs a few blocks away. Journalists are happy to report about all sorts of illegal and unethical things going on in Washington from in front of the White House. The government is not and has never been free to arbitrarily restrict freedom of speech in government buildings; in fact freedom of expression is generally better protected in public facilities than it is on private property.
The public retains the rights, even in the face of a poor judicial decision. Sometimes it just takes a higher court, or even the court of public opinion, to restore justice to the defendants. I couldn't agree more about the administration and the DMCA, although I lay some of that blame on Congress. Interestingly, some former sponsors of the DMCA, including Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, have mentioned that these are definitely not the results they intended. Hatch has been fairly critical of the recent actions by the recording and motion picture industry under the Act.
Re:Heh (Score:3)
However, this illegality is not permanent yet. As most people, I expect this case will be used to challenge the DMCA at the federal level starting with the appeals process (Kaplan's decision did throw doubt on the draconianess of the DMCA, but he had to follow the letter of the law in his decision). When the DMCA is declared unconstitutional, then DeCSS will no longer be illegal. HOWEVER, MPAA may still sue for civil damages as opposed to criminal ones due to the money they claim they lost on sales, but they won't have the DMCA to support their case.
T-Shirt Update (Score:3)
My DeCSS T-shirt arrived at my door-step this afternoon. This afternoon is AFTER the Kaplan ruling. The parcel came complete with a printout of the complete DeCSS source on paper (nice touch). It arrived, courtesy of the U.S. Postal Services Priority Mail option. Another nice touch. Thank you Copyleft.
The parcel clearly stated on the label, that it originated at Copyleft - a known named defendant in the DeCSS case.
So my question is this: Is the Federal Government in violation of the DMCA/Kaplan Ruling, by not only permitting the banned code's distribution, but also by contributing to it?
Perhaps, just to be on the safe side, they should open all correspondence, just to make sure that no DeCSS source code, or references to it are contained therein?
BTW: The shirt is sharp. High quality cotton, very legible, crisp printing. Get yours TODAY - before they're sold out, intercepted, burned or otherwise unavailable. Get a few - get one for Mom, Dad, your friends.. Spread the disease. They can't jail us all.
Re:One Judge... (Score:3)
Re:yeah it "views" real well (Score:2)
I for one would be happy to pay for a 'legal' Linux DVD player if there was one. But I've been getting really, really, REALLY sick of seeing companies say over and over again that they'll have a legal DVD player 'any day now' and then it never even gets to the beta test stage (as far as we know). I've seen at least three companies announce that they are going to release a DVD player app for Linux REAL SOON NOW (TM), but I have yet to see it.
If the MPAA is so worried about us, why didn't they go out of their way to create a player that could be used on Linux, or work with companies/individuals that would. But when asked a question like that we hear that we are a 'fringe' market and there aren't enough of us to matter. But there are enough of us to matter when it comes to these stupid ass lawsuites.
Sorry, but these sorts of things are starting to eat at me. One more victory for big business, one more loss for the little people.
Re:Analogy to Burglary (Score:2)
That's how absolute the DMCA is.
Already went and it's going again (Re:One Judge) (Score:2)
This case is going to the apeals court.
Re:hahaha (Score:3)
But whatever. So a hyperlink is a "vehicle". Then a better analogy would be that linking to a site with DeCSS on it is like driving someone to a hardware store so they can get a crowbar which could conceivably be used to aid in breaking into houses but you have no reason to believe is the persons intent since a crowbar has many other useful and legal purposes.
Dutch ruling: deeplinking content is legal. (Score:3)
Judge J. Mendlink (no joke, folks. SML) waived the arguments, stating, that if PCM, doesn't want others to use their information, that they should not put it on internet for free. He also considered it doubtful, that the newspapers in question actually incurred damage.
Funnily enough, normally internet-savvy journalist Francisco van Jole [mailto], who has been on the internet about since the start of last September (which was the '93 one, as we all know. SML.), predicted the imminent death of content on the internet.
Anyone with time and language skill is invited to translate the actual article or articles, via kranten.com or directly from for instance de Volkskrant [volkskrant.nl] or de NRC [www.nrc.nl], the best two national newspapers as far as I can tell, with preference to the latter. Both are actually published by PCM. Though only de Volkskrant probably has van Jole's actual words.
De Volkskrant also ran another story on "Ever more Merkins in Dutch ICT". Interesting, but I've got no time to tell ya about it.
Stefan (using my initials SML for editorial comments above).
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-
Re:Appeal of Recusal (Score:2)
The threat of 1st Amendment Rights on the net looms large in the horizon, and with the 'ease' it takes large corporations or outspoken politions or third parties to get laws enacted that threaten the 1st Am, time is running out quickly to set the standard. Yet while laws can be passed in days, court cases take months and years to work through. While the laws may latter be revoked, they are still in effect while the court cases go on, and corporations/the government can use them to threaten to get what they want.
In this particular case, I would definitely argue that Kaplan should have recused himself, but use that in addition to much of the evidence that did not appear in the final decision and other bits as part of the appeals process, as opposed to requesting a new trial, primarily for the fact that with each day the trial continues on, free speech rights are in question, and request for a speedy case. If, even after all that the appeals court only agreed to a new judge and trial before hearing the case, I'd take it, but urge the court early on to expedite the case and only call witnesses whose testimony was significantly affected by Kaplan's actions, letting the other witnesses testimony stand from the first trial's transcript.
selective law enforcement (Score:3)
These kinds of laws really bother me because they put too much discretion in the hands of the police/prosecuter If laws are more careful then much fewer people are guilty and only the deserving are prosected.
A quote from the MPAA from the article... (Score:2)
If you assume that using DeCSS as a tool to help copy a DVD is a crime, then this analogy is still wrong. What he is doing is equivalent to giving somebody directions on how to get to a store where they sell lock picks. Now, if somebody uses the picks to break into a house, is the guy who gave directions on where to get the picks liable? Is the guy who sold the picks liable? So why on God's green (and blue) earth is Eric Corley being held responsible for a similar act?!?
*sigh*
---
Re:hahaha (Score:2)
I find it scary that a ruling like this, and bad legislation such as the DMCA are even easier in nations that don't have a First Amendment. If it's kosher in America, chances are there is not much preventing it from spreading to the rest of the globe.
This battle needs to be won here, or it may never be won, and DMCA will be International Law. ok bye.
Axel
Is that a stiff upper lip, or...? (Score:2)
here's what I see (Score:2)
Does this mean that driving people to houses sould be illigal, just in case they were to burgle the house?
vw_bob
Re:UnEnforceable... (Score:3)
Regardless of how you feel about the legality of DeCSS itself, prohibiting linking to sites containing DeCSS is pretty much the same thing as prohibiting a movie about an elaborately planned murder. We allow movie makers to portray this every day, often in enough detail so that we now know how to do illegal things, or where to find illegal things.
I also find it funny that media outlets are scared... the majority of television and radio outlets, the source of the news for many people in the U.S. (where this case matters), are owned by the same people that own the motion picture studios... it's sort of funny. Check out Who Owns What [cjr.org] at the Columbia Journalism Review site to see exactly how much media is controlled by a few large entities.
Sujal
Even More Contempt of Court (Score:2)
Many make the serious mistake of believing that judge is a special position.Most of the time it turns out to be a shitty lawyer who couldnt cut it in a law firm or some disillusioned law grad whose daddy has a little influence.
In my own city all city officials,cops and judges were given the MMPI(Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory)a widely standardized test for weeding out the freaks and psychos.While it's
not a pass/fail sort of test it does reveal social,psychological and character deviance as well as strength.Only half the city officials were
worthy of their positions,5% of cops and 0.0%of judges.Not that its here or there but nothing was ever done about these test results they were merely "put on file".
I guess in the end my point is:Don't expect justice from anywhere but your own hands.Don't misplace your respect on these fools.Y'know if you took all the lawyers from everywhere in the world,placed them in a line and marched them into the ocean,it would be a good start.
IANALAIYCMOIBYA(I am not a lawyer and if you call me one I'll beat your ass)
Re:What the judge said... (Score:3)
> more important than our use of computers for the free exchange of information?
Yes, he is.
The most depressing thing about the state of IP law and those who practise it is that they utterly fail to grok the fact that it's precisely the use of computers for the free exchange of information that's led to the generation of so much capital over the past 20 years.
With real freedom to innovate, you get real freedom and real innovation. With Freedom To Innovate(tm), you get DIVX(tm) and SDMI(tm).
this logic makes my brain hurt (Score:2)
Kevlar Boxers...Because cajones aren't bulletproof
CNN's doing it... (Score:2)
Only way is to let DVD die. (Score:3)
The situation has become totally ridiculous. There's an old quote about how "private property" was invented the day an ape stuck a fence around a field, called it "his", and all the other apes believed him.
While we do live on a "small planet", with limited land resources, intellectual "property" is no such "thing". You can't try to apply the laws of the material world to the mental world. They two are different domains. They have different properties. They cannot be treated the same way.
Unlike a material object, an idea has no physical location. It transcends space and time. Ideas are a wonderful opportunity for people to give to the world in a manner that does not detract from themselves. If I give you my dinner, I may go hungry, but if I share my idea, we _both_ benefit (if it's a good one).
We are at a point where the powers that be would have us take "memory eraser" pills when we have finished watching a concert, so that we are not "stealing" memories of their IP --- (I submit this silly analogy as a homage to all the other silly analogies being spouted by highly paid, so called, "intelligent" individuals).
Unfortunately DVD is making it's way into the consumer mainstream.... seductively playing on the new entertainment tech appeal to the masses. But thanks to the discussions on /. I for one will at least be avoiding the stuff. Heck, I don't read enough fiction. Maybe I'll just read more books instead.
Re. the statement about companies protecting their "revenue stream": your services are no longer needed. Thanks, it's been great doing business with you, the music distributors (you know who you are), but I am not able to obtain music quite easily without your help. So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Downloading it as I type... (Score:2)
While I can't host it on Napster, may I place it on my personal homepage (not my website above - I am trying to keep my "politics" away from that)? I know the code it GPL'd, but your work is copyrighted - you have given permission to distribute - maybe a link back to your page. Wow... I guess I could do both, since you are giving permission implicitly by offering it on the net...
Once again, thank you! More chaffe - yay!
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
Try to remember the limited scope of this ruling. (Score:5)
This ruling is issued by a Federal District Court (Southern District of New York). It has very little value as legal precedent (many of these cases don't even get published anymore, although this one probably will, especially when it gets appealed). It really only applies as binding "law" to the litigants before the court (MPAA and 2600, plus other named defendants), and possibly by extension to anyone else subject to jurisdiction in the S.D.N.Y. doing the same things (assuming the Court pays attention to its own rulings later on down the line). If somebody else in another jurisdiction upsets the MPAA, they have to bring another lawsuit in that jurisdiction; they can point to this case as "res judicata" (things decided already) but the judge is pretty free to ignore it, especially if the facts differ. Stuff like this happens all the time; different state & federal courts disagree, leading to "splits" in authority between different Circuits (the next level up from District court); often, the Supreme Court decides to weigh in, to make things uniform nationwide again.
My 2 cents: if this upsets you, try "civil disobedience" - post your own links to DeCSS and other "banned" stuff everywhere you can (that is, your own websites - no advocacy for crackers/defacers intended). Keep the suits and lawyers so busy, they lose sight of the bottom line and start losing $$$. Use massive, peaceful protest to help change the current system. Examples: Ghandi, MLK, and now Emmanuel Goldstein?
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
Re:What I found even stranger... (Score:2)
How to obtain DeCSS (Score:2)
DeCSS can be obtained, for example, here [washington.edu], but there is a list of mirrors here [2600.com].
I don't mind if what I have written is illegal. I have freedom of speech [glic.org].
Re:So the Search Engines are Violating US Law? (Score:3)
Re:Wait... (Score:5)
[google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=decss+mirror&btn
[google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=decss+source&btn
[google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=decss&btnI=I'm+F
[google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=decss+download&b
This link doesn't have decss in it:
[google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=css+dvd+download
This link goes through akamai and google and doesn't mention decss.
[akamaitech.net]
http://a1.g.akamaitech.net/6/6/6/6/www.google.c
This link goes through go.com, akamai, and google and doesn't mention decss:
[go.com]
http://transfer.go.com/cgi/transfer.pl?goto=htt
Etc.
My Letter to Congress - Please Read. (Score:4)
Below is a letter I've sent to all of my congressman. Please feel free to use as your own if you feel the same way I do:
Dear Congressperson,
I write to you this letter through actual tears of distress at the disheartening developments and outcomes of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Never in my life have I see a single piece of legislation give so much power to corporations at the expense of consumer rights and individual liberties. Of all the amendments in our Bill Of Rights, one of them has for most stood out as paramount, and for good reason it is the First Amendment. Our founding fathers did not make it the 3rd, 6th or the 10th. In the most recent case, Judge Kaplan in the DeCSS vs. MPAA trial, ruled that not only was source code (which can be written on a T-shirt) not speech, but that even linking or directing to people to such code is also illegal!
I'm not sure what I am asking you do, only that if don't already understand the chilling implications of these trends, please do so at once. Since it was Congress who passed this draconian piece of legislation, it is Congress who must overturn it. I want to start seeing legislation that is pro-consumer first, and pro-corporation second. One that protects the liberties and freedoms of individuals against over-zealous corporate interests.
To anyone who knows anything about the use and programming of computers, source code is definitely speech. Computer networks are the fastest-growing medium of public and private expression; our rights and liberties, as we engage in commerce and in other forms of discourse via that medium are protected by instructions to computers. Source code is the means by which these instructions are expressed in ways that people can examine and understand.
On the Internet, there can be no genuine freedom of speech unless source code is a protected form of speech. This principle is attacked, however, by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in his ruling that, "society must be able to regulate the use and dissemination of code." The judge then enjoined Eric Corley, publisher of 2600 magazine, from assisting his readers from even linking to the code that unlocks DVD content. My head is spinning from the implications of all this. No longer is the act of a crime a crime, but discussing it or pointing to people who do is also now criminal. The current anti-piracy/pro-intellectual property laws are dangerously moving in that direction. No longer are the people doing the pirating liable, but any technology like Napster or Gnutella which makes it possible is also illegal. This same logic could just as easily be applied to the internet itself. It's equivalent to making cars illegal because they allow people to conduct bank robberies or kidnappings. Unless I am corrected, technology has never been the culprit, only the user of such technology is criminal. In a murder trial we don't hold the knife trial, only the user of it. But now with the help of statutes in the DMCA, people like the MPAA and RIAA are trying to outlaw any and all technology that can be used to facilitate piracy. If they get their way, we might as well say goodbye to the PC, the fax machine, the telephone, the internet, Napster, Gnutella, and just about any other new technology that doesn't give them complete control over all its content. This a chilling prospect indeed. Imagine everything we say, do and watch through media is tightly controlled, filtered and censored through power of consolidated corporate interests.
Dangerously, companies are already discussing plans to re-vamp the whole array of consumer computer products and internet protocols to do exactly this. Imagine buying your new computer with a label on it saying, "Do not open or tamper with under Penalty of Law". I don't know about you, but the thought of corporations forbidding individuals from producing and distributing media or building their own computers or running their own software should be completely repugnant to anyone with principles of a free society. To legally support the position that the common man is fit only for mindless consumption is a despicable point of view, and to forbid otherwise is a shocking development that speaks volumes about the perspective and motivation of modern corporations. But if the corporations do manage to create an entirely new information infrastructure, then the individual user will no longer be able to distribute their music or creative work online as they have up to now, as doing so would mean they'd be using a format easily copyable and cheaply distributed - which by definition would become outlawed if corporations get their way.
Now that duplication costs have fallen to zero thanks to the computer revolution, what you have here is nothing less than a corporate power grab attempting to create artificial scarcity where there is none, in a desperate attempt to maintain their previous monopoly of media distribution and revune streams.
Just imagine if the blacksmiths of days past were allowed to pass equivalent legislation prohibiting any technology which might circumvent their ability to make money; any transportation device not using horses now becomes illegal. It may have seemed a small sacrifice at the time to protect people's livelihood, but where would we be today without our modern transportation systems?
In the regards to the DeCSS case, the Supreme Court has already laid the foundation for reversal of this ruling, in Justice Stevens' majority opinion striking down the Communications Decency Act of 1996. That opinion described the discourse of the Internet as a "dynamic, multifaceted category of communication ... as diverse as
human thought," and included the vital statement that other cases involving other forms
of mass communication provide "no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment
scrutiny that should be applied to this medium."
Given the Supreme Court's unambiguous statement, it is shocking to consider the precedent that Judge Kaplan proposes to create. If it is unlawful to publish the means of breaking DVD encryption, then isn't it also unlawful to publish a detailed critique of any other encryption algorithm that explains its vulnerabilities?
For that matter, wouldn't this ruling hamper any form of consumer activism that independently examines the ingredients, the design or the behavior of any product whose vendors demand "trade secret" status? Sounds awfully convenient to me.
Those who approve of Kaplan's ruling assert that it merely enforces the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998; this assertion surely invites the Supreme Court's scrutiny of that law, since any U.S. copyright law must ultimately trace its authority back to language of the Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 merely authorizes Congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Copyright law is not property law, despite the attempts of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America to paint themselves as aggrieved property owners merely trying to protect what's theirs.
What's constitutional is what "promotes the progress" of creative expression. Increasingly, source code is the lingua franca of "science and the useful arts," and source code must therefore enjoy full protection against any law that abridges its freedom. This should also be extended to provide protection of technology creators to not be held liable for how some criminals decide to use it.
If you read this far, you have my deepest gratitude.
Most Respectfully,
Your name here.
My Letter to Congress: (Score:3)
Below is a letter I've sent to all of my congressman. Please feel free to use as your own if you feel the same way I do:
Dear Congressperson,
I write to you this letter through actual tears of distress at the disheartening developments and outcomes of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Never in my life have I see a single piece of legislation give so much power to corporations at the expense of consumer rights and individual liberties. Of all the amendments in our Bill Of Rights, one of them has for most stood out as paramount, and for good reason it is the First Amendment. Our founding fathers did not make it the 3rd, 6th or the 10th. In the most recent case, Judge Kaplan in the DeCSS vs. MPAA trial, ruled that not only was source code (which can be written on a T-shirt) not speech, but that even linking or directing to people to such code is also illegal!
I'm not sure what I am asking you do, only that if don't already understand the chilling implications of these trends, please do so at once. Since it was Congress who passed this draconian piece of legislation, it is Congress who must overturn it. I want to start seeing legislation that is pro-consumer first, and pro-corporation second. One that protects the liberties and freedoms of individuals against over-zealous corporate interests.
To anyone who knows anything about the use and programming of computers, source code is definitely speech. Computer networks are the fastest-growing medium of public and private expression; our rights and liberties, as we engage in commerce and in other forms of discourse via that medium are protected by instructions to computers. Source code is the means by which these instructions are expressed in ways that people can examine and understand.
On the Internet, there can be no genuine freedom of speech unless source code is a protected form of speech. This principle is attacked, however, by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in his ruling that, "society must be able to regulate the use and dissemination of code." The judge then enjoined Eric Corley, publisher of 2600 magazine, from assisting his readers from even linking to the code that unlocks DVD content. My head is spinning from the implications of all this. No longer is the act of a crime a crime, but discussing it or pointing to people who do is also now criminal. The current anti-piracy/pro-intellectual property laws are dangerously moving in that direction. No longer are the people doing the pirating liable, but any technology like Napster or Gnutella which makes it possible is also illegal. This same logic could just as easily be applied to the internet itself. It's equivalent to making cars illegal because they allow people to conduct bank robberies or kidnappings. Unless I am corrected, technology has never been the culprit, only the user of such technology is criminal. In a murder trial we don't hold the knife trial, only the user of it. But now with the help of statutes in the DMCA, people like the MPAA and RIAA are trying to outlaw any and all technology that can be used to facilitate piracy. If they get their way, we might as well say goodbye to the PC, the fax machine, the telephone, the internet, Napster, Gnutella, and just about any other new technology that doesn't give them complete control over all its content. This a chilling prospect indeed. Imagine everything we say, do and watch through media is tightly controlled, filtered and censored through power of consolidated corporate interests.
Dangerously, companies are already discussing plans to re-vamp the whole array of consumer computer products and internet protocols to do exactly this. Imagine buying your new computer with a label on it saying, "Do not open or tamper with under Penalty of Law". I don't know about you, but the thought of corporations forbidding individuals from producing and distributing media or building their own computers or running their own software should be completely repugnant to anyone with principles of a free society. To legally support the position that the common man is fit only for mindless consumption is a despicable point of view, and to forbid otherwise is a shocking development that speaks volumes about the perspective and motivation of modern corporations. But if the corporations do manage to create an entirely new information infrastructure, then the individual user will no longer be able to distribute their music or creative work online as they have up to now, as doing so would mean they'd be using a format easily copyable and cheaply distributed - which by definition would become outlawed if corporations get their way.
Now that duplication costs have fallen to zero thanks to the computer revolution, what you have here is nothing less than a corporate power grab attempting to create artificial scarcity where there is none, in a desperate attempt to maintain their previous monopoly of media distribution and revune streams.
Just imagine if the blacksmiths of days past were allowed to pass equivalent legislation prohibiting any technology which might circumvent their ability to make money; any transportation device not using horses now becomes illegal. It may have seemed a small sacrifice at the time to protect people's livelihood, but where would we be today without our modern transportation systems?
In the regards to the DeCSS case, the Supreme Court has already laid the foundation for reversal of this ruling, in Justice Stevens' majority opinion striking down the Communications Decency Act of 1996. That opinion described the discourse of the Internet as a "dynamic, multifaceted category of communication ... as diverse as
human thought," and included the vital statement that other cases involving other forms
of mass communication provide "no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment
scrutiny that should be applied to this medium."
Given the Supreme Court's unambiguous statement, it is shocking to consider the precedent that Judge Kaplan proposes to create. If it is unlawful to publish the means of breaking DVD encryption, then isn't it also unlawful to publish a detailed critique of any other encryption algorithm that explains its vulnerabilities?
For that matter, wouldn't this ruling hamper any form of consumer activism that independently examines the ingredients, the design or the behavior of any product whose vendors demand "trade secret" status? Sounds awfully convenient to me.
Those who approve of Kaplan's ruling assert that it merely enforces the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998; this assertion surely invites the Supreme Court's scrutiny of that law, since any U.S. copyright law must ultimately trace its authority back to language of the Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 merely authorizes Congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Copyright law is not property law, despite the attempts of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America to paint themselves as aggrieved property owners merely trying to protect what's theirs.
What's constitutional is what "promotes the progress" of creative expression. Increasingly, source code is the lingua franca of "science and the useful arts," and source code must therefore enjoy full protection against any law that abridges its freedom. This should also be extended to provide protection of technology creators to not be held liable for how some criminals decide to use it.
If you read this far, you have my deepest gratitude.
Most Respectfully,
Your name here.
Re:a semantic point : My Letter to Congress: (Score:5)
Remember: Citizens have rights. Consumers have only wallets.
Re:One Judge... (Score:3)
Much Longer than that! The U.S. is a common law country and like in other common law countries (e.g., Great Brittan) our legal system is filled with two types of "law." These are common law and statutory law. Statutory law is given by the legelature and common law is given my the judicial system. If you've been following this case at all the DMCA is statutory while Summers vs. Tice is common law. Most of our legal system, including contract and tort law, is derived from English Common Law. The Constitution not only allows but requires this.
As for your bullet points...
Nobdy would ever have any clue as to whether they were breaking a law unless judges were able to interpret laws. If you don't like a judge's interpretation you can appeal it. This is why, in a criminal trial, we have a judge to interpret the law and a jury to interpret the facts. The Constitution says "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."(I.9.) A law is not an ex post facto law just because the judge decides whether or not you violated it after you violated it.
Well some judges are elected but you're right that for the most part higher up state and federal judges are not. I think most if not all judges would argue that their decisions are anything but arbitrary. You can appeal a judges decision so that these important legal decisions are not made by a "single" judge. If you don't like how judges are apointed then elect someone president who will put in judges that you like or write your congress(wo)man and say that you want an ammendment to the constitution passed which allows us to elect all judges. However I don't see the current system as being that bad. If you don't like that the court can make interpretive rulings like Mirranda or that a state can't succeed to escape a federal excise tax then you are entitled to your opinions.
That is exactly why you can appeal. Once the surpreme court rules on something it applies everywhere in the U.S.
New NYT article rocks! (Score:4)
and on Napster:
"The lawsuits against Napster may be aimed at piracy, but they could also stomp out small record labels and unsigned artists who want their music to float freely through the world of Napster. But the big labels want to shut down the entire service. If the current laws are not strong enough, they want new laws that will stop people from making some kinds of open technology. They imagine a world where technology will control and limit people instead of liberating them."
Go NYT!
PS. I just submitted this as a story, and it's been reclassified as "YRO" in the submissions queueue, so it might hit the front page soon.