USA Gov. Brief in MPAA vs. 2600 case Online 317
The U.S. Government plans to enter the MPAA vs. 2600 case on the side of the movie studios, arguing in court that the District Court's injunction against distribution of or linking to DeCSS was correct and that the Court of Appeals should not overturn it. The legal brief the government filed is available, as are some news stories. In general, the government supports all of Judge Kaplan's "best" positions in his decision: linking is not speech, linking is equivalent to distributing banned content yourself, etc.
Linking is not distribution (Score:2)
If I link to DeCSS, you do not have DeCSS until you follow the link.
If I tell you that someone's selling cheap crack three blocks from you, you don't have crack until you go and buy it.
If I tell the police where the murderer is holed up, they still haven't caught him until they actually go and arrest him.
Question for you: the net is constantly changing. What happens if I post a link which right now contains pictures of someone's pet kitten, but which they later modify to contain the DeCSS source without my knowledge? Am I still responsible for the linked content?
linking is not speech (Score:2)
Anyways... Sure linking is akin to distributing, that's what you're doing, plain and simple. The question we have to ask is: Is the right to free speech allowed when it directly infringes the rights of another? Sometimes yes. I know, people will say that there can be no exceptions, but if this argument was about linking to child pornography, there'd be no argument. No law can be absolute. And yes, many people will argue that we're just giving more power to the big bad giant multinationals, but tough. The law (if it works) doesn't differentiate against the little guy. Now, I will agree that in reality this often isn't the case, but you can blame the current state of the American legal system for that. Forcing people to pay for their own attorneys if they are sued... In many other countries, if you initiate a law suit and lose, you pay both sides legal fees...
In any case, I'm starting to ramble. Sorry.
I would like to hear some intelligent replies to this thread. Is linking to something that is not necessarily kosher alright?
Re:Linking isn't speech (Score:2)
Exactly. The linking issue is a red herring in this entire case.
Re:Linking is speech in code-terms [Rant] (Score:2)
Whoa, boy. Take that shovel out of my mouth. The rest of my post (after the first sentence) is pointing out (though perhaps not as clearly as I would have liked) that linking should be protected for the very reason that one would have to judge intent, a legal nightmare.
And why the heck are you rambling about violence and starting wars? One rant per post, please.
Re:As long as we're talking about what might be... (Score:2)
There are many other factors to the equation of power distribution in America, but that is a primary one.
Don Negro
Re:Corley should drop the case (Score:2)
However if we wait till then, copy protection controls WILL be ubiquitious. The US SC will state that the studios and hardware producers will need to remove or alter their hardware and software to allow fair use. How fast do you think RIAA, MPAA, and the others will move on this? They'll pull the Microsoft arguement then; the cost and time to 'fix' the problem will be huge, just like IE was so embedded in Windows that it couldn't be removed without great cost (a fallacy, I know, but...). Certainly people will have the option after such a decision to buy new equipment, but most people will not want to change, and some might even be 'brainwashed' by RIAA/MPAA and think that copy protection is the only way to fairly pay the artists.
In other words, if we wait for the next better case, it will be practically impossible to go back to how it is now without SDMI.
The DeCSS case is a very strong case, maybe not as strong for trying to remove provisions in the DMCA, but is very strong in terms of free speech in regard to linking, etc. However, it needs more lawyer-speak power, and I'm wondering if Lessig and other law professors that have stood out for 2600 and DeCSS aren't trying to figure out how to get onto this case.
Re:linking is not 'distribution' (Score:2)
I mean, everyone else seems to be replicating alcoholic beverages, even the Cap'n is a caffeine junkie (ever notice how caffeine doesn't obey the law of i before e?) - could her caffeine addiction negatively impact her performance as a captain? Put people's lives in jeopardy? Is it a banned substance? I mean, sure, maybe it's some kind of synthetic caffeine, but she sure gets bitchy before she gets her coffee, so it looks like addiction to me - so whatever 23rd century substitute they have, it's still addictive.
Then what about patented drugs? Does the federation have to beam payments to the drug companies any time a replicator makes something to help a sick crew member (who then, in the line of duty saves the company's home-planet from assimilation by the Borg? All in a day's work ma'am). Is it against the law to hack a replicator? What if the Voyager's replicators stop working after a few years because the licenses weren't updated? THEN they'd be fucked.
Re:Scientific Internet vs. Commercial Internet (Score:2)
What if someone makes a news site with fake information? I've got news for you. . . The public WOULD be misled, IS misled, and has been misled for decades.
The crackdown on "anyone can have their own server" has already begun. What content you can host is determined by your ISP, likely a Very Large Corporation (or soon will be bought by one).
It won't be long before most personal web pages are "this is my car this is my dog" pages. (um wait) hosted on Geocities, and the tools required to start a viable web business (ecommerce software, web design expertise, hardware, connectivity, partnerships with search engines and filter companies and huge OS vendors, etc) are so expensive, that the bar is too high for the general home user, and only Very Large Corporations will be able to do it.. Just the realities of market economics.
Re:By this scenario (Score:2)
Re:Corley should drop the case (Score:2)
There are WAY too many home video libraries out there - I know guys who have thousands of tapes of shows and movies, shows they never watch - wifey asks, "what are you going to do with all of those tapes?"
"I'm going to watch them when I retire - especially if the quality of programming keeps going the direction it's been going."
Well, at least the vintage commercials will be funny. (people bought THAT?)
I don't know one single person who has a DVD player, and not a VHS player. Until DVD becomes writable, and economically writable, there's no way VHS is going away. (My wife tried to talk me into buying one of those combo DVD/VHS machines, and I convinced her 'no' because then, there is no way to circumvent macrovision. I like my Apex).
Re:Both parties equally bought and paid for (Score:2)
It sounds like the libertarian party's aim is to just let the people with all the money and power do whatever they want to those who don't have money and power. (please, please, stop interfering with my right to dump nuclear waste on MY land! please, please stop making me pay taxes for a police department I don't need because I hired my own private armed security force!)
It puts way too much faith in the personal responsibility of individual humans who basically only display personal responsibility when they are compelled to by social contract.
Re:Both parties equally bought and paid for (Score:2)
I mean, I know the libertarians have a strong online presence, but they're just whacko, and the Greens, well, they're too strongly associated with failed socialist policies of Europe (whether that's true or not, that's just how we Americans view the Greens, just a fact, not an opinion - and if that doesn't kill the Greens, Jello Biafra, though I LOVE the guy, will), and the Reform party, well, it was a nice idea until the fundy freaks usurped it.
Democrats $
Republicans $
So it looks like lobbying an existing party to get onto their platform is not a viable option.
Re:As long as we're talking about what might be... (Score:2)
Re:As long as we're talking about what might be... (Score:2)
I think this is probably a key point in American History that's glossed over - because that notion, is bundled with slavery, at least in the propaganda that's pushed.
Now, everyone, please, raise your hands, who's for slavery? Anyone? Buelher? Anyone?
So basically, the way the US Civil war is taugh in US History classes, is that giving the Federal Government THAT much power was a GOOD thing, and if you don't believe that, you're for slavery, and a Nazi racist skinhead trenchcoat mafia member! (erm- Godwin's law?)
A masterstroke of social engineering, I might add. Propaganda, before propaganda became fasionable.
Hey, all that time I wasted reading Robert A. Wilson books had to be good for *something*!
Re:But businesses ARE people since around 1900 (Score:2)
So the law will be changed to make sure that the shareholders get to vote on corporate political donations. (instead of being forced to "vote with their feet").
The Republicans accepted that argument as long as Unions were similarly restricted by the will of their members. (which seems fine to me, why wouldn't Union members want to give money to the party that stands up for their rights?)
Re:HAve you contacted your Congressman (Score:2)
The ACLU has such a bad reputation of political bias (whether that's deserved or not), it won't help our case on bit. In fact, it will harm it. In America (if you haven't noticed) if the ACLU is defending it, then it's part of the international communist conspiracy. . .
I think that organizations like the EFF and ACLU are fine and dandy. Legal guns are necessary, but die mensche, the people, need to be educated. They need to know and understand these issues. Especially the people who are in law school right now, who will be prosecuting and defending and judging these cases in the future. Right now, the legal environment consists mainly of people who "came up" during the greed-infested 80's. It's only going to get worse as corporate propaganda in the educational system (yet another money-making machine), gets more and more entrenched.
It's the dental students who have to pay for the damn necessary book every 180 days, it's the animation students who don't get to view as course materials, one of the seminal works of the art (Steamboat Willie) because it's still not public domain, and luckily, it's the 70 million dorm rats who are being chased off of napster.
Since this Napster debate started, I've heard the opinions of a lot of deluded self-rightious morons who have been listening to record company propaganda saying that copying is stealing and that it's illegal. Well, that was bullshit from day one, and more effort should be put towards educating these people that we had (until recently) a legal right to copy music - until the record companies bribed the politicians and judges to take away that right. Whether it SEEMS right or wrong is a moral exercise for any individual, but what is CLEARLY wrong is telling someone that what they are doing is illegal when it's not, and then bribing politicians and judges to change the law. Once people realize that, they should understand that this issue isn't just about copying Brittney Spears songs, it's about our basic rights and our political system, control of our very lives - economic slavery. The right/wrong issues are staggering when you take that into account. A 136 Gig MP3 collection is a tempest in a teacup by comparison. That is what the lawyers and judges and politicians of tomorrow NEED to know.
The internet is the greatest information dissemination tool that humankind has ever devised. And still, we can't get the word out.
Re:Linking isn't speech (Score:2)
Then you effectively ban me saying to someone: "Hey, I hear you can pick up a hooker on 8 Mile and Woodward". I'm allowed to do that now under the Constitution -- but I'm not allowed to do the technical equivalent on the Web?
No way. If this decision stays as a piece of prior case law, I'm all in favor of taking up arms and staging another revolution.
(Oh, I'm allowed to say that too... Nice thing, free speech).
Good comment, senseless (-1) moderation (Score:2)
ClayJar's item seems both insightful and very nicely written. The fact that, as he says later, he's dismissed as a radical merely by mentioning that our freedoms are being usurped by big business really does highlight the key problem which underpins the whole DeCSS/MPAA and DMCA issue --- the majority of the public seems to be blindly accepting or oblivious of what's going on, and therefore government and big business can proceed with whichever agenda suits them best with impunity.
Yes, in what's allegedly a democracy, that's definitely the key problem.
Solution: Separate players from crypto plugins (Score:2)
We're good at technology, so let's apply a technological solution that isn't at the mercy of people who's minds are rooted in the past.
Instead of trying to get the single DeCSS guinea pig accepted, with all the room for litigation and corporate control that that implies, many alternative implementations could be developed by different groups, and made available as plugins.
This would allow generic players to be created and published safely on websites, supplied only with a plugin for accessing unencrypted content. Meanwhile, an unstoppable rain of alternative plugins would be available over Usenet.
Structuring crypto plugins for DVD players (Score:2)
Yes, a very good point, as a plugin for a player wouldn't normally be usable in any other any application. Plug into the OS, by all means! Write once, use many places.
The plugins must not be kernel modules though, for obvious security/stability reasons, but should attach to the kernel as clients --- a Unix domain pipe or SysV IPC would do fine as the means of communication.
Mistake to rely on courts and government (Score:2)
Given the realities of the situation, the online community went about the DeCSS problem in the wrong way. Instead of hoping for sanity from the courts and government, dozens of alternative mechanisms should have been created by different groups, and made available as plugins.
This would allow generic players to be created and published safely on websites, supplied only with a plugin for accessing unencrypted content. Meanwhile, an unstoppable rain of alternative plugins would be available over Usenet.
Re:Again, is the effect inductive? (Score:2)
All links gone? I don't think so! (Score:2)
Re:Ostensibly, the artists. (Score:2)
Which, of course, explains used book stores, used CD stores, libraries (who give them away), your right to sell the works at a garage sale, etc.
BTW: Back early this century, book publishers tried to pull some restrictions on resale of books. The Supreme Court ruled that they may want it, but they couldn't have it - feel free to sell that book for $.01 if you want.
(All of the above for US folks - non-US, check your laws for what rights you have. Also, IANAL, etc).
Re:linking is not 'distribution' (Score:2)
and the term "banned content". why does this just give me the shivvers?
Hmmmm... just a guess, but maybe it's because you're not a Nazi boot-kisser?
The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion.
The Incredible Shrinking Democrats (Score:2)
Reagan left the Democrats at the behest of wealthy California land owners, who wanted someone to push their agenda through as Governor of California. Charleton Heston on the other hand...I'm not exactly sure what made his transition to "conservative," except that he strikes me as a pro-censorship jerk. Running the NRA is his only presently redeeming quality.
If the Democrats lost the moderate white vote by supporting civil rights and equal opportunity laws, and further alienated male voters by trying to ban guns, they are now about to lose the liberal vote under the direction of the corporate-ass-kissing Democratic Leadership Council. 25,000 people voted Green in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election. Nobody can make a credible case that fewer than 2% of those Green voters were swayed away from the Democrats. The number is probably more like 40%.
What's the solution? I'm not sure there is one. The fact is, the nation is swinging right for now, and the United States is going to get more repressive under the Republicans and the Loyal Opposition before it becomes better. It could be decades.
ObJectBridge [sourceforge.net] (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
USA as Intervenor (Score:2)
Where did all the DeCSS links go? (Score:2)
I would really like to see the DeCSS Source Code [cubicmetercrystal.com] published by those who care about the chilling implications this has on your personal rights.
Re:All the DeCSS links are gone?? (Score:2)
Re:DeCSS (Score:2)
I guess they dont want to send certified snail mail to tens of thousands of people who post the information.
Re:so don't link. (Score:2)
Well, you know what? If no one posts links and provides the content then they have already won without a battle.
I may or may not suffer severe repercussions from my actions, but it will be worth providing the information, and perhaps showing my disdain for severely unconstitutional laws passed in congress.
Re:By this scenario (Score:2)
An undercover agent drove by Terri White on the street and yelled out the window asking where he could buy drugs. Terri called over to someone around the corner who came out and sold $30 worth of drugs to the agent. The person who sold the drugs was a known drug dealer with a juvenile drug trafficking record. However, he was still five months away from his eighteenth birthday. Terri was charged with aggravated drug trafficking. In court the juvenile said that the drugs were Terri's.
Sentence: 12 years
Link to the article on FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums) [famm.org]
Re:HAve you contacted your Congressman (Score:2)
Pat Schroeder is a Democrat. Therefore, she can do no wrong.
Remember kiddies...
Democrats GOOD
Republicans BAD
Re:but first sale is much weaker (Score:2)
The right to Free Speech is meaningless if I'm required to speak into a sound-damping device run by a corporation with a lot of money^H^H^H^H^Hpolitical influence so that others can't hear me, even if they want to. In short, the right to CONSUME (listen to/watch/read) speech freely is a fundamental aspect of "free speech" in general.
(At the same time, I need to have the right NOT to listen to/watch/read whatever I want, e.g. advertisements at the beginnings of videotapes and DVD's.) Freedom of speech "production" and freedom of speech "consumption" are both fundamentally necessary for "free speech".
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Are you sure? (Score:2)
You might want to check your country's copyright code -before- the MPAA finishes here and goes around the world trying to establish precedent in other countries...
Parity None
--Parity
the power of grep, wget and the DMCA (Score:2)
Lets wget the entirety of government websites, grep them for links to DMCA banned speech, then prosecute. Once we've identified the offending links, we can track them, and then we can seek damages for every instance of their being followed.
Maybe if we can get this archive of links, and a cost estimate to our representatives before the case reaches it's next big phase, the government may change it's tune. A sword isn't anywhere as nifty a toy when you're looking at the pointy end.
Constitution vs case law, amateurs (Score:2)
Amateur analysis is more important than professional indoctrinated analysis, and the written constitution (which is available to everyone to read) is more important than case law. Why? Because everybody, including all us amateurs, are expected to obey the law. If ignorance of the law is not a defence, then the establishment's strategy of keeping people ignorant, is unfair and immoral.
The legal establishment's reliance on case law and obscurity, only serves to keep law within the realm of the elite. Its purpose is to make legal knowledge scarce, artificially increase the pay rate of lawyers, and reduce Joe Schmoe's ability to influence the society that he lives in. It also has the side-effect of making it so that the rich can bully the not-rich, by outspending them in order to get them to surrender/settle an argument in order to avoid a legal judgement.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see someone who plays a lawyer, advocate keeping amateurs and laws written by legislators (as opposed to judges), out of the argument. If you find amateurs discussing law to be embarrassing, it is probably because it is potentially a threat to the profession.
---
Mudslinging... (Score:2)
i.e
Defendants publish a magazine for computer hackers, which "has included articles on such topics as how to steal an Internet domain
name, access to other peoples e-mail, intercept cellular phone calls, and break into computer systems at Costco stores and Federal
Express."
I think the defendents submissions should include some derogatory terms also, and I'd like some suggestions.
As a starter I propose:
Plaintiffs use the DMCA and associated copyright laws to fix absurdly high prices for their products ?
Re:Corley should drop the case (Score:2)
Whilst the opinion in the parent of this article was interesting, I don't think Corley should drop the case.
The plaintiffs have claimed that the primary purpose of DeCSS is to rip DVDs, which it isn't. In any case, at the time the case was bought, use of DeCSS was uneconomic.
DeCSS has made a GPL Linux DVD player possible; nothing else would have done so.
DVD is currently a minority format, but I predict within 5 years that tape will be dead or dying, replaced by one or more forms of random access media such as DVD, TiVo type devices etc.
Therefore I think we do have to fight now.
Re:Time for action... (Score:2)
Equally important, or perhaps more so, is for us to learn to control our appetites. So long as the short-term gratification of being able to watch TPM in all its digitized glory is more valuable to us than the long-term decrement in our constitutional/traditional rights and privileges, then we'll keep making the trade until we don't have any rights or privileges left.
Learn to say 'no' when corporations start peddling goodies with strings attached.
That's not to say you shouldn't support the EFF too: I got my cap & T-shirt last week.
--
Re:Bush is the one allowing it to go Forward (Score:2)
Re:DeCSS (Score:2)
Re:Supreme Court should hear this case. (Score:2)
Re:DeCSS (Score:2)
Re:DeCSS (Score:2)
Re:Are you sure? (Score:2)
MPAA is on my behalf free to establish a precedent in Finland, there's no way they could win with current legistlation...
Ville, INAL but pretty damn close
My DeCSS archive:
In Europe DeCSS is LEGAL (Score:2)
If you a lucky enough to live in one of the EU- countries, there's third legal option. A mirror of DeCSS. As long as new the EU copyright directive isn't in force there shouldn't be any (legal) problems.
Of course it is quite likely that MPAA & DVD CCA will still try legal harassment, for example your ISP will be most certainly receiving harassing letters from their lawyers. That's something that one should be prepared for. But, it's definately worth of the hassle.
Ville
My DeCSS archive:
Re:Where did all the DeCSS links go? (Score:2)
Anyway the positive side is that in EU it should be pefectly legal to publish DeCSS. The situation may change after the new copyright directive comes in force, which will still take some time...
Ville
My DeCSS archive:
Re:linking is not 'distribution' (Score:2)
so by his thinking, if I link to a picture of a pot plant, its the same as distributing that same pot plant?
I'm not sure that its a fair analogy.
In your case what he's saying is that you are distributing the picture of the pot plant.
The main problem with Digital Media is that it is Digital Media. You can (so far) double click on a new monitor, and download the new monitor into your home. You CAN double click on a song and get a perfect copy of it indistinguishable from what you would hear off of a CD. You can even get a whole album and burn your own CD if you want.
I don't agree that linking is equivalen to distributing the content yourself, but that is whats freaking out the RIAA and MPAA more then anything else. They survive by having the best distribution channels in place. The internet just obsoleted that.
If everyone had a machine that, when fed a chemical formula, could reproduce any chemical, and all you had to do was double-click on the formula for Pot and the computer would retrieve that formula, download it into this device, and the device what output processed pot, would you consider linking to that formula "distribution"?
You may laugh, but thats the way it works now for MP3, WAV, AVI and MPG files.
Re:By this scenario (Score:2)
Personally, I think it's terrifying to watch. Whether I like it or not, my own country is directly affected by what goes on the US: economics, manufacturing, software, trade agreements, international patent enforcement and US multinationals are all factors which have a direct bearing on my quality of life and day-to-day existence. This includes:
Yes, my own clueless government often take the lead from US legislation on issues like intellectual property. Luckily there's no real law enforcement here and the country has a famous history of civil disobedience. But it's still disheartening to watch US citizens who should know better do nothing - yes I'm talking to YOU - John Q. Geek sitting there reading this post. When was the last time you wrote to your Representative? Voted in an election? Publicly protested against a company you didn't like? Boycotted a company's products and told them why you were doing so? Contributed to the EFF? Engaged in civil disobedience and were prepared to take the consequences? Great - we need more like you :)
Ostensibly, the artists. (Score:2)
Every artist has a right to determine how their art is distributed and presented to the public. In the music and movie industry, the artists sign over the distribution rights (and often the copyrights) to consortiums like the MPAA. Therefore, the MPAA is acting like an 'artist', and has a right to determine how 'their' content is enjoyed. If they wanted to exclude blue-eyed left-handed people from seeing Titanic, they have every right to do so.
The name is not the thing. (Score:2)
-russ
Re:Stop lying to yourselves ! (Score:2)
There is no evidence for this -- neither that "everbody knows", nor that it is true.
-russ
All the DeCSS links are gone?? (Score:2)
What fantasy world is this person living in? Perhaps they have a list of the links in the civil action. Perhaps all of those links are gone. That doesn't mean that it's become difficult to get a copy of the DeCSS code.
-russ
Re:But businesses ARE people since around 1900 (Score:2)
It has been applied in the past, but not for around 100 years give or take. The legal mechanism to do this is still available. I've come across some campaigns to impose a "corporate death penalty" on various businesses here and there on the web.
For a general primer on the history and evolution of corporate power, along with a call to arms to fight back, check out the Corporate Crackdown [adbusters.org] at the Adbusters [adbusters.org] website.
Trickster Coyote
The power of illusion. The illusion of power.
Re:Have you PAID your congressman? (Score:2)
Would a corporate employer tolerate their employees taking money to perform actions detrimental to the employer's well-being? Then why do the public employers tolerate it? Campaign finance reform will probably never be passed by the people that live off graft and bribery; perhaps a rather loud uprising might finally force Congress to do the Right Thing?
*rant mode off*
Linking isn't speech? (Score:2)
Re:Has anyone published a DeCSS book yet? (Score:2)
Re:Corley should drop the case (Score:2)
Well, yeah, us poor dumb hicks who don't know nuthin' 'bout bein' a fancy lawyer take a real exception to the whole concept of case law trumping the Constitution. It seems pretty obvious that it's real easy to build a road, one 'case law' brick at a time, that takes you from "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" to "Certain politically disapproved speech is not allowed in certain forums" to "Say what we allow you to say and don't say anything else"
And code isn't protected speech
Neither is email
Nor wireless transmissions
Nor any kind of digitally encoded data
And yes, it CAN happen here. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" "Identify your associates within that organization, and we'll go easy on you..."
Or, for a even more divisive example from today's news: from "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" to "five days later, maybe, but you can't take it with you anywhere---and be sure not to store it in such a way that it would actually be useful as protection against an intruder..."
It seems that on occaision, one MUST return to the core principles---"according to my reading of the Constitution..."---otherwise, the United States as a Constitutional Republic is doomed. One 'case law' brick at a time. If people can't be expected to understand their rights without a law degree, what good are they?
Business needs can't be ignored (Score:2)
For instance, consider the case of the government enacting a bill that makes ISP's liable for any pornography that a minor can access through the ISP. In cases such as this, that industry must be able to argue its case to the congress, informing them of the technical and practical limitations of what can and can't be done.
Other than that clarification, I wholly agree. There's a big difference between corporations having a voice, and corporations drowning all the individuals' voices out.
--
Re:Why do players need to be authorized? (Score:2)
- In response to this threat, the consumer electronics and computer industries have developed technologies that protect from infringement copyrighted works in digital format by denying individuals access to such materials absent some special key or descrambling code, and by disabling users with access from making copies of a work without authorization.
... Joining an international effort to make the Internet a more secure business forum, Congress enacted the DMCA to uphold the integrity of copyright protection in cyberspace
Due to technical limitations, it isn't feasible to implement these copyright protection mechanisms for every device, platform, application, or protocol. As such, the copyright holders get to choose all of these for you.--
Re:expected, but scary (Score:2)
My check will be in the mail this evening.
--
Re:Two Words: Common Law (Score:2)
Wasn't there this controversy recently about the good old US of A wanting to legalize assassination of foreign political leaders?
//rdj
Have you PAID your congressman? (Score:2)
Re:none of these things are relevant to fair use (Score:2)
Soundtracks are often reordered on records or CDs when they're released (if they are released). Director's commentary may be available in an interview, but that isn't keyed to the film the way it is on a DVD.
Start from why copyright (and patents) were created instead: to promote speech, to stimulate discourse (and to promote innovation in the case of patents) by giving you a (temporary) legal monopoly. Fair use came about to make sure that legal monopoly didn't get in its own way, stifling the point of copyright in the first place.I'm a published author. Addison Wesley mails me a check once a quarter. A small check, but it is a check. Do I want people to be able to copy my book wholesale and resell it without paying me? No. Do I want other authors to be able to build on it without restriction? Damn right I do - it's a textbook and I want people to learn from it. Copyright enabled me to make money from the book, but isn't there to prevent anyone else from building on it.
Re:Both parties equally bought and paid for (Score:2)
Your typical example does hold in the case of Ronald Reagan (as well as, for example, Charleton Heston) as they WERE democrats until the 1970s. As Reagan put it: I didn't leave the democratic party--the democratic party left me.
Food for through, neh?
completely wrong (Score:2)
That is completely false, linking DOES NOT DIRECTLY infringe anything. Linking is telling someone where something is, nothing more. Further more, what RIGHTS are being infringed. DeCSS is a program that can be used for many things, and it is not even the best tool to use for "pirating" movies. Add to that the fact that copyright law today is completely unconstitutional in that in the constitution it allows for LIMITED (limited cannot mean longer than the average lifespan) copyright to FURTHER PROGRESS (NOT TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE FOR THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER!!!).
Linking isn't speech (Score:3)
Why do players need to be authorized? (Score:3)
One aspect of this which I do not remember seeing justified is why a DVD player should need authorization from the MPAA. Or to put it another way, what gives the MPAA (and others) the right to dictate how their content should be enjoyed?
When you purchase copyright a copyright work, be it a book, picture, DVD, CD, VHS or cassette tape, you are purchasing the right (or a licence) to enjoy the copyright work. I do not disagree with the copyright owners wishing to control the copying of the work, broadcasting and public showing, but I fail to see why they should also have (or claim) the right to dictate the environment in which the work may be enjoyed in private. If you purchase a book or painting, the copyright owner does not tell you where you are allowed to read the book or hang the painting. Once we purchase the DVD, it should be no business of the copyright owner what equipment we use to view the content. The US DCMA states that none of its provisions remove the "fair use" use rights given by other copyright laws but recent events make this claim rather suspect.
Re:Ostensibly, the artists. (Score:3)
Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
Also, more to the point of this particular message, as an example of how artists do NOT have the right to control how their works are distributed and presented after first sale, for instance, it is completely legal for you to buy an art book, cut out each page, frame it, and sell them individually. Once you purchase a copy, you then have the right, not under some license, but under copyright law, to resell and/or dispose of your copy as you see fit.
Those who don't know your rights, might as well not have them.
Both parties equally bought and paid for (Score:3)
This simply isn't true. Beurocracies chug along just fine during political transitions and have for the last century (at least). You are probably right in that the foundation was almost certainly laid under the Clinton administration, but you are wrong to assign innocence to the Bush administration.
Hollywood has its claws into both parties. Actors and Artists are typically in the Democratic camp, while Recording and Movie Executives are typically in the Republican camp. I say typically; there are obvious exceptions, such as Actor turned President Ronald Reagan. In any event Hollywood and the Copyright Cartels hold a great deal of influence over both parties.
Remember, it was a Republican congress who passed the DMCA into law, and a Democratic president who signed it.
Re:Supreme Court should hear this case. (Score:3)
You know, there's this Slashdot assumption that 69th Amendment to the Constitution grants "Fair Use" rights that can't be overruled by some little ol law.
Well, it isn't true: Fair Use is a concept defined by copyright law. And if the copyright law (the DMCA) says that "bypassing an access control device is illegal and not Fair Use", then that's the way it is. So the real solution is 1) Mass Civil Disobedience, which will lead to 2) The repeal of the DMCA or (more likely) the passage of the Digital Millennium Consumer Fair Use Act.
--
Re:Supreme Court should hear this case. (Score:3)
Fair Use is a legally inherent part of the Constitutionally authorized Copyright laws (at least that's what the Supreme Court said when they allowed "Fair Use" to be a defense).
So no, Congress cannot legislate Fair Use away (short of a Constitutional amendement). This is one of the arguments the EFF has been using -- that Congress simply CANNOT restrict the fair use of material even if they 100% wanted to with the DMCA (and of course, they DIDN'T intend to, which is one of the other major arguments).
---------------------------------------------
Development of Encryption Technology (Score:3)
So how do I submit a paper contradicting the opinion in the Governement brief?
Beware your faith in the Supreme Court (Score:3)
I think that 2600 has very valid legal ground and the release of open source players for Linux validates the very useful application of this technology. But the Supreme Court could decide that this laws was within the jurisdicition of congress and that Kaplan's interpretation is accurate. Then where would we be?
We need to find a louder voice in the place where the bad laws get made. We need to have greater control over our destiny than hoping that we get lucky with the Supreme Court. It's too late now for 2600 to take a different approach, but if this goes badly, we need to be ready with a backup plan (besides moving to countries with well written laws).
---
Re:Has anyone published a DeCSS book yet? (Score:3)
Re:Doesn't work that way (Score:3)
Further, my understanding is that the reason that DeCSS was orginally written for windows was because the code the borrowed from the Xing player
was easier to port to windows than linux. It should be noted that within a week there was a linux utility based on DeCSS available.
Another reason to get your Copyleft DeCSS shirt (Score:3)
The css-auth song was removed from MP3.com as "objectionable" material. I suspect there's a lot of material on MP3.com that depicts violent or misogynistic acts, or contains various forms of hate speech. I bet that material never gets touched.
In fact, the code is now public record; the MPAA's lawyers entered the code into evidence, and forgot to have that exhibit locked away from the public!
If we're playing the "intent" game, then posting the code with the intent of allowing others to download it and rip DVDs can be blocked. Posting the code with the intent to protest the MPAAs actions can easily be considered speech; rather like abortion protestors busting out the pictures of aborted fetuses at clinic rallies (then decrying violent images on TV, but that's another issue, and if you think I'm getting into that one right now, you're nuts).
What if I post the code on an HTML page [24.42.105.140], not in a tar.gz or
Once again: MPAA lawyers, you don't like it, come get me . I have a lot of time, and the will to defend my right to protest, and to view my legally-purchased movies on a platform of my choice.
Not unusual, but it is disappointing (Score:3)
In otherwords, a government brief in support of the constitutionality of a statute is a pretty routine act.
Still, I wish they had stayed out of this one. Their silence would have been deafening.
MPAA will probably win (Score:3)
Now, if we consider the simplest case where OS company "M" asks video card vendor "V" to stop anyone attempting to write a driver for another OS. Ingenious in a way that it would prevent anyone from expanding say OS "L" to include the newest technology.
We can add that anyone caught linking to the new "illegal" driver as guilty of a crime (based on the ruling above) and the rest is history... If you find this unlikely, consider your favorite video card and on which OS they sell the most. In the name of "quality" they want to ensure that only the best drivers, code, programs, data, links, etc. are available to their customers.
Now consider the experience level of the average PC user who has gotten 50 ILOVEYOU messages (and probably opened five), who do you think they will believe?
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US (Score:3)
"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act];
If a "technological measure" can be circumvented, there's no way it can be described as "effective".
Kill 'em with their own words. ;-)
PS Sorry about the subject line. Something must be interfering with transmission.
--
Question... (Score:4)
Computer programs are "essentially utilitarian" works. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 704 (2d Cir. 1992). Simply put, they are articles that accomplish tasks." Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1524 (9th Cir. 1992). DeCSS -- the computer program "[a]t the bottom of this case" -- is no different. Brief for Defendants-Appellants ("Appellants' Br.") at 2. As the district court found, "DeCSS, like any other computer program, is a series of instructions that causes a computer to perform a particular sequence of tasks which, in the aggregate, decrypt CSS-protected files." Universal City Studios, 111 F. Supp. 2d at 328-29; see also Appellants' Br. at 2 ("DeCSS decrypts the data on a DVD and stores it."). This function is entirely nonexpressive, and thus does not warrant First Amendment protection.
Fine-- computer programs are simply "articles that accomplish tasks." They are not speech, says the government.
In order to be a candidate for copyright protection, however
In no case does copyright protection of an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, ... design, and three-dimensional works, while not protected by copyright, may be protected by a patent.
See http://www.acs.ttu.edu/documentation/laws/lpc5.htm l#205 [ttu.edu].
If a program is not free speech, and it's not copyrightable, then it seems the government is saying that the DCMA does NOT cover any kind of software, and that any copyright notice on (non-content) with regards to software is misapplied.
The DMCA doesn't cover patents (does it?) so I guess it's still legal to use DCSS-like programs for the purposes of copying/accessing any copy-protected software.
W
-------------------
As much as the Usurper Annoys me ... (Score:4)
As much as the Usurper annoys me, and as opposed to his notions as I am on several issues, it is IMHO unfair and inaccurate to imply that he will be engaged in any more quid-pro-quo money for politics behavior than his Democratic counterparts. The difference mainly lies in who the parties of the transaction will be (e.g. Big Oil vs. Big Law Firms), not the quantity of sleazy bargaining engaged in.
As far as this particular issue is concerned (Copyright Cartels stealing our rights through corrupt legislation bought and paid for), both parties are equally reprehensible. It was a republican congress that passed the bill, but a democratic president who eagerly signed it into law. The same is true for encryption and a number of other issues that concern technology folks BTW -- on the issues many of us really care about, there is no difference between the two major parties, and hence no real choice.
Scientific Internet vs. Commercial Internet (Score:4)
I think these opening sentences sum up their views quite clearly:
To them the Internet is nothing more than a new distribution platform for commerce.
Think about it: we don't let anyone run a Television station nor do we allow anyone run a Radio station (reinforced recently by the veto of low power radio licenses). These are two mediums, distribution channels, owned and operated by Very Large Corporations. Suddenly the Internet comes along and allows anyone to speak their mind. Not only in text but in sound and video. What a scary thought.
What if someone makes a news site with fake information? The public would be mislead. What is someone makes an audio recording with hateful or vulgar speech? Can't let the children hear Bad Words. What if someone makes a video with naked boobies? Shock, horror and shame.
I believe the first part of the Internet to be regulated will be Medical Information. Doctors are already bitching when patients learn about alternative therapies. "We can't have them reading that voodoo. You have to help us Uncle Sam." It seems logical to me. You're dealing with Public Health which is an issue that tugs at emotions almost as well as "Save the Children."
The systematic destruction of Freespeech on the Internet has already begun. It's simply a matter of where the Government and Corporations will strike next.
Re:Corley should drop the case (Score:4)
- The trailer(s) for the film itself (never on VHS, only trailers for other films the studio wants you to buy).
- Alternate language soundtracks (often never released in the US - I mean, really, "South Park" in French is not on the shelves in Blockbuster in the US (maybe in Quebec, maybe not), but it is on the DVD).
- Subtitles, both in other languages and for the hearing impaired (you can verify that line you can't quite hear, and oh, that's [rhythmic farting] during the "Uncle Fucker" song on "South Park").
- Director's commentary (never on VHS).
- Music-only soundtrack (never on VHS).
Now, add in the features you get on a better DVD release. How many of us bought a DVD player just to see all the groovy stuff they put on "The Matrix" DVD? I mean, you simply can't jump back and forth between behind-the-scenes and released footage on video - it's tape! it's linear!Okay, I'm clearly getting overwrought :-) Time for some coffee and happy pills.
Re:Supreme Court should hear this case. (Score:4)
Re:This sucks (Score:4)
What is interesting is that there are books like The Anachists Handbook, that are printed legally in the USA. There is an interesting FAQ here [righto.com]. This passage is relevant:
Lyle Stuart (the auther)published the book (The Anachists Handbook) for a number of reasons. At the time Librarians across the US were being intimidated by the FBI and CIA who wanted to get names of people checking out books they felt were subversive. Lyle Stuart felt that publishing this book would make those efforts meaningless since people could simply buy the book without signing for it. Anyway Lyle did publish the book.
In my opinion the event of publishing the book was important. The contents are garbage. This was a very dangerous and brave publishing act for the 1960's.
People obviously do not want this info (found at 2600) spread around for reasons of their own profits. But somehow publishing on the internet is different than putting out a book?
HAve you contacted your Congressman (Score:5)
Has anyone published a DeCSS book yet? (Score:5)
I for one would pay as much as $50 for such a book (even though I have no use for DeCSS and already have a copy of the code in text format, printed out before it was banned). I would probably be wiling to pay twice that if some portion of the profits were to go to the EFF and/or 2600's legal defense fund.
It might be interesting to publish such a book and donate it to a number of libraries around the country as well
Again, is the effect inductive? (Score:5)
The whole internet is supposedly within 7 hops of any page. It looks like the courts have just ruled the internet illegal.
Ah, well. Free speech was a nasty ideal anyway. You could end up with people criticising their governments or something. Maybe even going so far as to criticise a corporation or a consortium.
--
Time for action... (Score:5)
To do this, there are only two (legal) solutions I can think of:
Support the EFF [eff.org]
Support 2600 Magazine [yahoo.com]
Please do it now. I know I will.
And so it continues... (Score:5)
It strikes me that, perhaps, the US government has just about finished it transformation from a government of the people, by the people, and for the people into a government of the businesses, by the businesses, and for the businesses. Of course, since a corporation is a legal person in this country, perhaps they've just misplaced part of their heads.
The scary thing is that almost nobody sees what's going on. When those that do see the dangers have the audacity to talk about it, they are branded as conspiracy theorists et al. I can hardly put forward the idea that our freedoms are being usurped by big business before I'm dismissed as a radical. If eternal vigilance is indeed the price of freedom, I'm afraid that the days of freedom are limited. Perhaps there are still many left, but at the rate we're progressing, we're getting dangerously close to the point where nothing short of a full-fledged revolt will have any chance at producing change.
We're precipitously close to an Orweillian society run, not by governments, but by big businesses who all but own the governments. If such a dystopia comes in to power, I'm afraid it may be extremely difficult to break the bonds of socio-economic tyrrany. At our current progress, such a system will at the very least attempt to take over; I can only hope that we can work fast enough and be strong enough to topple it in its infancy.
expected, but scary (Score:5)
These Things take a while to prepare, so I wonder if this is something that was developed under the Clinton Administration, and then now has the blessing of the Bush. It is doubtful that the Bush folks would have put something like this just since the swearing in, or even since the election, since they were so distracted with other business.
This then presents the picture of both political parties supporting the people with deep pockets. Again not unexpected. But upsetting, since you would hope that *someone* was not corrupt.
This separate from the merits of the debate to begin with.
That's exactly the point (Score:5)
It's the same tactic as sleazy ambulance chasers use in rape cases.
Jury, look at this women: she drinks, she hangs around bars and she dresses in skimpy skirts. Dear jury: Anybody can see that she actually wanted it
The strategy is to get somebody convicted (or vice versa) simply on moral grounds which are not whatsoever related to the cause
This, in my book is blattant abuse of the judical system.
Could it be possible... (Score:5)
I think that it is clear: A Corporate Republic will always choose IP, a Democracy will choose freedom. Enjoy the extra 0.0004 cents squelching DeCSS just might bring to shareholder dividends in a few years. You will not be able to link (speak, what's the difference?) freely because of it.
Supreme Court should hear this case. (Score:5)
That is why this case should keep going straight to the Supreme Court, where they will reaffirm the fair use doctrines, since after all, it is not illegal that you use whatever player you wish. Truly, it is the movie industry with their DVD region coding, and their "authorized player/use" that violates fair use and infringes on the rights of the users
Regarding the DMCA, I would have to say that I hate this legislation. It was done quickly, and with little regard for the actual consumer and rights of individuals. It's doubtful that the Supreme Court could overturn the DMCA based on this case. We will have to wait for another case that clearly infringes on the rights of the consumer(and believe me, it will come), and uses the DMCA as the wonderful law that is being broken in the case. Until then, we should find ways in which to use content within fair use, and wait to be challenged by the powers that be. Then we'll take them to the top.
The time has passed (Score:5)
Someone who posted earlier wrote that all of the amateurish "as I read the first amendment" interpretations of the Constitution are meaningless. While I'm sure that the sentence wasn't intended to be a commentary on the state of our country, it actually is an excellent observation. Our views, the views of average citizens, no longer matter. The only views given any consideration are those that come from a source that can provide something in trade for that consideration. Be it campaign contributions, consulting fees, a partnership, whatever, you must have something to offer if you wish to be heard.
Sadly we have no one to blame but ourselves for the current state. We have allowed these circumstances to envelop us one small step at a time. We have done very little to become actively involved determining the direction of our country. Our freedoms have fallen slowly, often for the 'greater good'. Each one brought us closer to today. We look at issues one by one: copyright violations, reverse engineering, hate speech, guns, privacy violations. Each one of these is examined individually, often in times of crisis (the RIAA says "They're stealing our music!"), and a decision is made without really understanding how it might effect the rest of our lives.
I'm not sure of the solution to this problem. Far too many place far too much stock in the word of the mainstream media. That media presents stories in such a way that moves public opinion in the direction they choose, they have had years of practice. The common citizen needs to wake up and see the direction we are heading with each of our choices. Only then can we begin to right the system that has strayed of our course.
Hmmmm... (Score:5)
alternative:
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --
And you are definitely allowed to make a copy of any content for personal use. And you are definitely allowed to watch any content whereever you are. And silly DVD region codes and encryption is attempted to prevent both. Just imagine you are not allowed to read an original Shakespeare in a non English speaking country. There are so many movies on DVD only available in one region code. Or you are not allowed to cite from a book, as this is prevented by a copy protection.
That commercial thing just should not be the base of every decision. This gonna be much more dangerous than any cracking tool. This type of content protection is even used in agriculture! There are manipulated cereals that only germ if they are treated with some chemicals only available from the seeds company!
Re:Linking isn't speech (Score:5)
http://slashdot.org/
The above isn't a link. It is just a URL. It's trivial to automatically make a link of it, though. Something many systems and applications (such as gnome-terminal) do automatically.
Should that be considered linking, or speech?
What about "You can find it on Slashdot". Is that linking, or speech? It would be trivial with gnome-terminal for instance to define a regex that matches any such reference, and creates links to slashdot.org/.net/.com.
The effect is the same. And with the help of applications, it will in many cases be indistinguishable for the end user.
The critical part is that if you are legally obligated not to link to sites containing illegal material, many will not dare link at all, since a site may change at any point, and it may be impossible for you to prove later that the illegal material weren't there when you linked.
Also, for you Americans, your courts has time and time again defended news sources rights to publish material that was either aquired by illegal means (the Pentagon papers spring to mind), or to paraphrase libelous material or other material where the original publication was deemed illegal, because censoring it would prevent the free dissemination also about criticism about the work.
What if free sale of Mein Kampf were forbidden, as it is in Germany (you can get hold of it, but you are required to have a "legitimate" interest in it, for instance for research purposes), and you were not allowed to quote even to illustrate your arguments against nazism? It would strike not only the publishers of the book and those supporting it, but also those opposing the banned work.
In this case the work in question has been deemed illegal by the lower court. And even those opposing it and it's use will risc breaking the law if they link to it even for the purpose of illustrating what they are talking about.
Linking in this respect is akin to quoting, or to giving an ISBN number, or tell that "you can go to that store, and they will have it", all of which is legal.
The really interesting part of this, is that judge Kaplans justification for banning the linking is so thin that there's a good chance a printed newspaper could publish all the links it wanted to decss without the risc of any repercussions, while a website can not (at least not in the form of an actual link).
But the real issue here is that the court is trying to censor what should be protected speech - the decss program itself.
Gov vs 2600 (Score:5)