2600 Drops DeCSS Appeal 246
Slashdot Chaplain writes "At the 2600 site, you can see today's details about why 2600 is withdrawing from taking their suit to the Supreme Court." So let's recap the case: 2600 published the DeCSS utility on their website. The movie studios filed suit, and the EFF agreed to assist 2600 with their case. 2600 lost the case in District Court, receiving a tongue-lashing from Judge Kaplan, which ordered them not to post or even link to DeCSS. 2600 appealed. They lost. They attempted to have their case heard again, by the full Appeals court rather than a three-judge panel, and were rejected. And although they have the option of appealing to the Supreme Court, they are saying today that they will not: so Judge Kaplan's decision stands. The case in California is still ongoing. No doubt this will be discussed at H2K2 next week.
DeCSS (Score:1)
I haven't heard anything relating to it, except for the taxes on CD-Rs, DVDs, and VHS tapes
Re:DeCSS (Score:5, Informative)
As of right now, there is nothing "official" about it.
The Canadian Copyright board is considering legislation similar to the DMCA, and (for the past year, give or take) has issued a request for public comments, and held public hearings about what should or shouldn't be included in such legislation.
The RFC elicted over 600 comments, all of which were published at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp00007e.html [ic.gc.ca]. A (very informative) summary of these responses is available at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp00842e.html [ic.gc.ca] (Interesting to note that our government considers copyright infringement and "piracy" to be two different things.)
I attented the last day of hearings, held in Edmonton, and I must say that things looked hopeful. There was one guy, who owned a publishing house, who was pro-playback protection, and everyone else (approx 50 or so, including a police officer, teachers, librarians, and even the president of a crypto company) was opposed.
Re:DeCSS (Score:2)
Re:DeCSS (Score:2)
Definition... (Score:2, Insightful)
Money does.
True Definition.... (Score:3, Informative)
Don't Blame 2600 (Score:5, Informative)
Given the recent 2600-related news (recall that Ford dropped the suit against them over FuckGeneralMotors.com [slashdot.org] last week), I should point out that 2600 Magazine relies on merchandise sales [yahoo.com] and magazine subscriptions [2600.com] to stay afloat. For those that haven't heard of 2600 Magazine, I recommend that you check it out. I've subscribed since the early '90s, though it's been published continuously (every quarter) for over a decade now. Whether you want to support 2600's legal work or you'd simply like to keep current on hacker news and culture, I recommend that you subscribe.
-Waldo Jaquith
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't Blame 2600 (Score:2)
I think in this case it's got less to do with the strength of the case then the makeup of the court. There is no way in hell a republican dominated supreme court will rule in favor 2600.
Re:Don't Blame 2600 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't Blame 2600 (Score:2)
Why do they have a vested interest in him? They keep their jobs and can do as they please whether he is a success or not. You might argue that if he succeeds he is more likely to appoint more conservative judges to the court and so the most conservative factions might help him out. However, this court has been very professional and is very evenly divided. It's hard to imagine them making decisions in order to help out a member of the executive branch. The court considers itself to be above such political games. As a registered Democrat, I would have no problem bringing a solid case to this court.
Another point. The supreme court was never about doing what was neccassarily best for America. That's not what they are there for. They are there for the purpose of understanding and interpretting the Constitution and applying constituational law. Fair use, for instance, is probably in the public interest but does not occupy a prominent position in the Constituation. Therefore, taking a fair use case to the high court would be a waste of breath. One would have to make an arguement along the lines of 1st amendment rights or something more creative.
Re:Don't Blame 2600 (Score:1)
Idea! Public defenders against private lawsuits .. (Score:2)
SOMETHING has to be done to balance the power.
If Megacorp A goes after littleguy B, and littleguy B is assigned Some Huge Lawyer by the court, and Megacorp would have to cough up a filing fee so large as to cover the costs of Huge Lawyer's bond against the action, then maybe we might see far less of this bullshit.
Just a thought.
Re:Don't Blame 2600 (Score:1)
The World? (Score:2, Insightful)
People who read /. know all about the DMCA. Outside of that, I don't think anyone cares. Windows users buy their DVD-ROM's and WinDVD comes with so they are happy and it doesn't affect them.
Re:The World? (Score:2)
*cough* Sklyarov *cough*
Re:The World? (Score:1)
Re:The World? (Score:1)
Regardless, what the US does will affect us in the long run. This may be good or it may be bad. Nobody knows. The US is a strong economic power whether we like them or not, and pretty much our only direct neighbour. It would be quite dumb to say that they do not influence us at least somewhat.
Re:The World? (Score:1)
i live in washington state so i have gone to cananda more than a few times and let me tell any of you who dont go there much... its almost the same country... nothing feels different when you go there... the money is a different color and a few thing you can notice but cananda and the us are VERY similar... which means the SAME companies that are buying America are buying Canada... you can thank NAFTA for that...
Re:The World? (Score:2)
decision (Score:1)
Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:4, Insightful)
So, by not appealing, they leave the door open to a future (stronger) case to set the law straight.
It's a matter of picking your battles wisely. Give up this one battle, but not the war.
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:2)
So, any Californians want to give it a try?
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, yes, except that DeCSS might be used to unencrypt the word "God," and so the Ninth Circuit will find it prima facie unconstitutional.
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:1, Insightful)
I still agree with 2600's decision, however. Their history as a hacker magazine instantly prejudices most judges against them. I think they would be hard pressed to win *any* case in front of the Supreme Court, regardless of the composition of the court.
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:2, Insightful)
Not necessarily. A conservative judicial nominee is more likely to be a strict constructionist, one who interprets the Constitution without an (overt) activist agenda. Such a jurist would be more likely to take a dim view of Hollywood's lawmaking-by-payola activities.
A Democratic judicial nomination would be more likely to be made at the behest of the sort of Hollywood interest groups that more or less constantly brown-nose Democratic lawmakers. Remember that the DMCA happened on Clinton's watch.
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:2)
* - Okay, he didn't say it in those terms, but he did say he would only appoint judges who believe belief in God is a neccessary part of being a member of American culture, which amounts to the same thing.
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:5, Insightful)
As you'd expect from that, the Presidential Oath or Affirmation in Article II.1.8 [emory.edu] is "merely"
with no "so help me God" or anything like that...Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:2)
Well, why aren't you resting yet? Oh yeah...that's why.
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:2)
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:2)
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:2)
What they cannot do is pass (and expect to have upheld) a law which codifies the criteria.
To read the constitution otherwise means that one has to read the minds of the president and congress when they reject someone. Let us say Bush rejects someone because he doesn't like their religion. Let's say he even (foolishly) says so. What exactly is the lawsuit to be brought? What does one argue before the supreme court? Do you argue that he must appoint this person because his reasons were invalid? To do so would be to violate the President's duties... the court cannot force him to appoint a person of their choosing!
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:2)
And even in cases where it can be proven that The President has violated the Constitution, the only "remedy" available under the law is impeachment (and then of course it has to be something that pisses off the majority of the Congress, a category to which trampling the rights of atheists alas does not fit.) So whether you can sue him over it or not (you can't) is irrelevant to whether or not it is a Constitutional conflict.
constitutional conflict (Score:2)
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:2)
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
with no "so help me God" or anything like that..
Or at least that was the version pre the 1950's putting "god stickers" on anything in the US the'd stick to.
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:2)
Not necessarily. A conservative judicial nominee is more likely to be a strict constructionist, one who interprets the Constitution without an (overt) activist agenda. Such a jurist would be more likely to take a dim view of Hollywood's lawmaking-by-payola activities.
Why? There's nothing unconstitutional about lawmaking-by-payola. The DMCA will never be overturned by the Supreme Court, because it is not unconstitutional. Despite what many slashdotters may be led to believe Bad Law != Unconstitutional Law. At best the DMCA will be narrowly constructed to allow circumvention in certain fair use situations.
Say what? (Score:2)
For that matter, how does the DMCA inhibit progress on its face? Where is the historical record that shows congress wanted to inhibit progress through its passage?
The Supreme Court isnt in the business of striking down bad laws. They strike down unconstitutional laws. Bad laws are the duty of citizens and their legislature to take care of.
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:2)
If the DMCA has the basic effect of inhibiting this progress, it is unconstitutional.
That's a big if. Take a look at Eldred v. Ashcroft for an idea of how hard it is to prove that a law does not promote science and useful arts. If a retroactive copyright extension of works already created can be said to promote science and useful arts, pretty much anything could. Even if not (the supreme court has agreed to hear Eldred v. Ashcroft), the DMCA quite clearly has the potential to promote science and useful arts. The idea is that if artists can lock up their works with DRM systems then more of them are likely to create art.
Then on top of that, the trafficking portions of the DMCA can be said to rely on the commerce clause, rather than the copyright clause.
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:2)
Re:Why you don't always go to the Supreme Court (Score:2)
Yeah, but the anti-circumvention clause can be said to violate the "limited time" portion of the Copyright clause.
No, because you are only guilty of circumvention of "a work protected under this title". If the work is public domain, it's not illegal to circumvent the protection.
Besides, 2600 wasn't being sued over the circumvention clause.
Tragedy (Score:1, Redundant)
my favorite factoid (Score:5, Funny)
I still have a screenshot of it in my HD...
Re:my favorite factoid (Score:1)
It's just rediculous.
Re:my favorite factoid (Score:2, Informative)
Here it is:
http://cnndecss.0catch.com/ [0catch.com]
sorry about the lame banners & schitt, but I am not going to slashdot my own damn servers...
ps this free host says they give you "unlimited bandwidth"... LOL.
They may win this round (Score:1)
dvd2svcd is that illegal (Score:1, Informative)
Perhaps in the future a year from now it won't come with auth.dll and another version will be created. In the meantime download away!
What is it that we are buying? (Score:4, Insightful)
By checking the price tag, you can quickly acertain that you aren't buying just the media.
We've all been reminded a million times that we don't own the content.
The whole deCSS issue has elliminated the possibility of buying the right to watch or listen to the content since we can't legally do this on our own. Note: I realize that you can't simply look at a CD and hear the music on it, but the technology required to listen to the music on the CD isn't illegal to post on the internet.
Okay... so maybe we're buying the right (if you can call it that) to consume the content - but only providing that certain conditions are met - like we've bought some software from a company approved to make it. Well, not really, because if we owned the right to consume the content, we shouldn't have to pay full price for a replacement if we lose or accidentally destroy our DVD or CD or whatever.
So we're buying something that we don't own. Right. My favorite way to spend money.
By the way, where can I find the deCSS stuff now?
Re:What is it that we are buying? (Score:1, Interesting)
Don't like that model? Don't spend your money that way. See, this is how capitalism works - people and companies that provide goods and services are given money in exchange for the use of those goods and services. If people don't like the terms, they don't spend the money, and the terms change.
Obviously, a lot of people don't mind not owning the copyright on the media they purchase. They're perfectly content to just watch the movie, and those few who want to copy the content without paying for the privilege are left up shit creek.
Again, you don't like it, don't buy it, or create something better. That's capitalism. Capitalism works. Whining doesn't. Deal.
Re:What is it that we are buying? (Score:2)
See, this is how capitalism works - people and companies that provide goods and services are given money in exchange for the use of those goods and services.
NO. Capitilism does not work by government granted monopolies. If this were true capitalism, I would be allowed to do anything I want with the property I own, not restricted by law against copying and even interpreting my property.
That's capitalism. Capitalism works.
Not when there's a monopoly product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is it that we are buying? (Score:2)
Re:What is it that we are buying? (Score:5, Funny)
You are buying a lovely, crunchy Cellophane wrapper. It's yours, to do with as you please. You can even share(tm) with a friend! How's that for freedom?
As a bonus, when you buy this Cellophane, you also get a limited right to do certain things with the Box and shiny Plastic Disc inside. You may open the Box with your right hand, remove the Disc with your left, and insert it into an approved Device to view or listen to some Content. There are several Devices you may use for this purpose. After you view or listen to the Content (please do not fast-forward, although there are no commercials [yet], we don't want you getting into the habit), please return it to the box, and lock it away so no one else can use it. In fact if you want to just throw the whole thing away, and buy it again next time you want to view the Content, that's just fine with us. You'll even get another piece of Cellophane!!
Self Imposed Scapegoat? (Score:1, Flamebait)
The MPAA and their cronies went out of their way to choose a defendant (us) that the court system would be prejudiced against.
Is complete bullshit. 2600 goes out of their way to get sued and make test cases. I would venture to say that being in court is the best publicilty 2600 ever gets. A lot of people got cease and decist letters over DeCSS. Some decided not to fight, 2600 decided to thumb their noses at the MPAA and Judge Kaplan, and they felt the consequences.
I'm not saying they deserved what they got, but they are acting like the MPAA came after them with no warning or provocation. When you poke a bear you shouldn't be suprised if it chases you up a tree.
Re:Self Imposed Scapegoat? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Self Imposed Scapegoat? (Score:1, Insightful)
And after it was all said and done, the most obvious free-speech case in the last 2 years didn't recieve the constitutional ruling it deserved.
They are totally right, the MPAA went after them because they were the best target. After all, do you see them suing AOL/TW, who posted a link to the code on the CNN.com webpage? Or, perhaps, after all the other news sites that posted to sites that posted to the code? After all, 2600 can't even post to sites that post to code, that's a part of the ruling.
No, the MPAA chose their battle very wisely. Now, 2600 is doing the same in choosing to not do battle.
Re:Self Imposed Scapegoat? (Score:2)
Their "hacker" image ended up hurting them in court. The MPAA lawyers played up the fact that they published what looks like the anarchist's playbook. If these cases had happened more recently you can be sure they would've played the terrorism card. To the uninformed, or frankly, to anyone incapable of intelligent reasoning, 2600 appears to be a criminal group with an underground publication attempting to spread terror. The only way it could've been better for the MPAA is if it were Neo Nazis linking to DeCSS.
This is in fact all too common. When someone wants to promote their point of view they attempt to make those that disagree appear stupid, evil, or otherwise unappealing. Fox News does it all the time when they invite "liberals" onto their shows to comment--they find maniacs with some twisted point of view and then proceed to ridicule them, and to try to generalize it against an entire group.
Re:Self Imposed Scapegoat? (Score:2)
- then why didn't the MPAA go after CNN
Let's see...the MPAA respresents the movie insdustry, specifically its members [eff.org], which include:- Universal City Studios, Inc
- Paramount Pictures Corporation
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc
- TriStar Pictures, Inc
- Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc
- Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.
- Disney Enterprises, Inc.
- Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
and CNN is a Time-Warner property...This is such a bummer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is such a bummer (Score:4, Insightful)
-jhp
2600 not doing it is much gooder (Score:2)
I say good game to 2600 and the EFF for not screwing it up entirly for people. let the court change a few seats before someone brings this up again (and it will happen agin if not by 2600 then by someone else).
my 2cents
Re:2600 not doing it is much gooder (Score:1)
on the the schools (Score:2)
Teachers care
But thanks anyway! (Score:4, Interesting)
Your fight on this case has brought more attention to the issue than any publicity campaign could have ever raised! You more than caried your share of the load for us all. Someone will pick up the fight from here, because our rights are still there, no matter what stupid act, or congress idiot thinks about taking them away, and calling it a Patriot Act.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS.
PS: The only Patriot Act that should have passed was the one in the Superbowl! Go Pats, do it again!
Am I being slow or what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Am I being slow or what? (Score:1)
Happy Fourth of July everyone! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Happy Fourth of July everyone! (Score:2)
Re:Happy Fourth of July everyone! (Score:2)
I'm well aware of that.
I'm sure you don't really care
Say wha?
I'm sure if Gore had won the electoral and lost the popular you would be extolling the virtues of the Electoral College
This is truly fascinating. You know absolutely nothing about me and yet you somehow managed to divine my innermost thoughts from my mentioning a fact you can find in any almanac or election history website. How about next time you wait for me to say, "I don't like the electoral college" before ranting about my hypocracy? All I said was that Bush was not elected by popular vote, exactly as the parent had said that George III was not elected by popular vote. Kindly take your arrogance and shove it.
By the way, one of the reasons we don't use the popular vote is the difficulty of counting 100,000,000 votes
Well now there's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Regardless of how you 'group' them, you still have to count all 100,000,000 of those votes.
Why am I responding to a troll? The world, may never know...
The perl source (Score:2, Funny)
This battle was a draw, the war is not over... (Score:1)
I mean who here does not have a copy of DeCSS? As soon as I read the story here, I downloaded a copy via one of the dozens of links posted.
The MPAA did a much better job of spreading DeCSS than anybody else could have. Nobody would have cared much about this little bit of code otherwise. This code will now live on forever and they can't do a damn thing about it.
For those keeping score at home, current score: MPAA 1, Geeks 1. Round 2 comming soon.
Prudence (Score:3, Insightful)
What about Andrew Bunner ? (Score:4, Informative)
Although 2600 has lost this battle, I wish Andrew would have better luck.
Re:What about Andrew Bunner ? (Score:1)
In other news, the case lost on appeal on the grounds that the previous judge concluded the case quickly so he could go get some "munchies".
Re:What about Andrew Bunner ? (Score:1)
Obviously you've never smoked before.
You remind me of the scene in Fear and Loathing where the Cop Conventioneers are learning why users call a roach a "roach".
(Oh, and if you really are stoned right now, you're a dork for posting such lameness to a fucking website)
you LOSE. Smoke a bowl. It'll help you in life. I'm FUCKING serious!
OK... So they dont' want a precedent.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Other than legal costs can anyone explain why this wouldn't work?
Re:OK... So they dont' want a precedent.... (Score:2, Informative)
No, you're specifically not allowed to do this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OK... So they dont' want a precedent.... (Score:2)
Intresting (Score:4, Interesting)
Google Search Engine [google.com]
Yahoo has blocked the search of DeCSS [yahoo.com]
Lycos [lycos.com]
Altavista [altavista.com]
MetaCrawler [metacrawler.com]
Go. Now Overture. Owned By Disney/ABC [overture.com]
CNet (Search.com) [search.com]
Add Any I left out
Re:Intresting (Score:2)
yeah Disney's go.com [overture.com]
Re:Intresting (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
EFF took the case even without a posterchild (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll bet that when the XXAA starts suing individuals [slashdot.org], they'll have done background checks to ensure the defendants are as unsympathetic as possible.
Donate: Don't let your innovation insurance lapse (Score:2)
I've been to many of their events and know people there: the EFF isn't rolling in money- quite the opposite. It really is a non-profit, and money is their limiting factor: more money = more cases they could take. Far fewer people donate than you'd think, including people who have directly benefited from their work (if you're at a US internet security or encryption company that hasn't donated, try to change that!). They try to be at or ahead of the curve on tech issues, and this means that its harder to get the grandparent sympathy donation(2). And their main donation source- us, the techie crowd- just hasn't been doing to well lately. Unfortunately the number of cases the EFF should fight doesn't go down in an economic downturn, its probably the opposite: Congress is chumming for dollars with Disney / MPAA more than ever.
(1) in the economics sense
(2) If the EFF was a medical nonprofit, they wouldn't be the ones with the big-eyed sick children, they'd be the ones worrying about prions [nih.gov] 20 years ago. Harder to explain, but often more important.
Walmart and the DeCSS (Score:3, Insightful)
2600's association with hackers, phreakers, and crackers, etc, did not make it easy for them to appear as angels. Though the law shouldn't be biased, it is hard not to be, especially when you don't understand the jargon.
Of course, its getting to the point that judges that do not become technically proficient SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH. If many judges still held racist views, would they be tolerated? I think not.
Judges must become technically knowledgable. Greater effort must be spent on educating judges about technology.
Explaining technology to someone who doesn't understand it is essential.
Four words for you walmart / mandrake / lindows (Score:2)
I'm curious (Score:2, Redundant)
any computer program, file or device that may be used to decrypt or unscramble the contents of DVDs that are protected, or otherwise to circumvent the protection afforded by CSS and that permits the copying of the contents or any portion thereof.
By this definition, wouldn't anything that could descramble CSS be considered 'DeCSS' such as WinDVD, or any DVD player on the market. In fact, DVD players permit copying, because I could run the output into a VCR, and I'm sure some dual deck DVD players might be coming out soon, and if those will permit copying, they could be considered 'DeCSS'.
This just seems to be an overly broad definition of DeCSS and could mean anything that can decrypt CSS including licensed programs. Maybe the clincher is that it permits copying, but couldn't anything that's not directly beamed to my eyeballs/brain be copied in some way?
Re:I'm curious (Score:2)
This point goes back to the subtleties and loopholes in DMCA. The key word is "circumvent." DMCA defines that word, and it doesn't mean what you (or anyone else) would think it means:
Notice those last few words. If you have permission, then you're not circumventing. This is the hole that DVDCCA-licensed DVD players were intended to slip through, while simultaneously stopping unlicensed players.This hole was poorly designed for its purpose, and has some unintended weaknesses. You will find it an interesting diversion to consider some of the possibilities. (Hints to start you off: who owns the copyright on a DVD? Is it always the same party for all DVDs? In what form is this "authority" to bypass, given?) I have not, however, heard of any attempts at exploiting it to its full potential.
Very sad (Score:3, Insightful)
It is even sadder that it matters WHO you are, not the merits of your case... The RIAA and the courts wanted nothing of Professor Felten, of Princeton, but have no trouble squashing the "eevilll" hackers of 2600, despite the fact that the DeCSS case was far stronger.
Our government is owned by the highest bidder. The DeCSS case proves it. Sooner or later we will either be completely corporatized, or else line some of these buggers up against the wall. One or the other outcome is inevitable.
Re:Very sad (Score:2)
Re:Very sad (Score:2)
It doesnt. All it does is lock in their PARTIALITY in for life.
Kaplan is a prime example. A lowly district judge, the lowest IN the Federal food chain, he came from a lawfirm that defended media companies (like TW). So, you can say that the IP lobby funded him then. He was also a Clinton appointee, which also suggests bias towards the media establishment (and the DMCA).
Contrary to popular belief, FEW of these guys actually serve for life, because few of them get to move up and on, without sound political connections. So, Kaplan, as a lowly district judge, needs to either:
1. Get himself some political buddies to get promoted (which could put him under the influence of a Senator Hollings, or some other pro-IP lobby politico)
2. Get himself positioned (by doing favors) to cash out and go to work FOR a corporation.
Option #2 is becoming more and more common, especially as our society and the corps become more litigious. Judges are picked from among the LAWYERS. Corps are most likely to USE lawyers, especially against consumer interest. Ergo, the judiciary, particulalry the newer judges (like Kaplan) are more likely to be PRO CORP...
Re:Very sad (Score:2)
The RIAA and the courts wanted nothing of Professor Felten, of Princeton, but have no trouble squashing the "eevilll" hackers of 2600, despite the fact that the DeCSS case was far stronger.
Far stronger? Try 2600 broke the law. Felton did not. Sheesh.
Our government is owned by the highest bidder. The DeCSS case proves it.
No, the DMCA proves it. The DeCSS case simply proves that the constitution does not protect against government being owned by the highest bidder.
Re:Very sad (Score:2)
It is not obvious to me that publishing DeCSS is protected by the first amendment. It is not obvious to me that it is not. The amendment is not absolute... you can be prosecuted for a number of things you speak or write - for example, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, or inciting a riot, *or* participating in a criminal conspiracy.
Copyright law exists to protect private property. The law is out of date in that it (and here is where corporatism - or more accurately - special interests come in) extends too far into the future. Beyond that, it is not at all unresonable that a person who creates something should control what he creates, and that is what this is all about. I think the copyright holders are idiots and haven't adapted to the digital age. But that doesn't change their rights.
What I find more questionable is the remedies which they have been given in DMCA and other areas. It is one thing to have a property right, and another thing when the government persecutes people in an attempt to protect those rights.
Traditionally, theft of copyrighted material has resulted in prosecution of those who profit by doing it en mass - i.e. tape and CD duplicators. This is not unreasonable. But when one can prosecute somebody for simply publishing, at no profit, technology for stealing the material... well... I think that's going to far.
But it doesn't mean the judges are owned by corporations.
The judges are making their decision - First Amendment vs. law and property rights. We may disagree, but from a legal standpoint, the judges are not obviously wrong - however much we dislike their ruling..
Possible legal solution for DVD playback on Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Just create a Linux DVD player (Score:2)
Smart decision... (Score:2)
Can someone splain me this? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2000/0817-decision
I don't understand why 2600 attempted to argue the definition of "effectively" as the layman's definition, instead of arguing that the ability to play DVD's on computers at all, with other software permitted by the Plaintiffs, means that CSS does not effectively control the ability to copy (etc.) the material.
I also don't understand why they did not argue this on the basis of the existance of the ability to make verbatim copies of DVD discs indicates that the CSS mechanism is in fact flawed by design, and therefore does not effectively control (etc.).
Finally, I don't understand that they did not argue that the keys used by DeCSS were in fact the important part of the equation, and the DeCSS itself was not therefore a mechanism, without the keys, and that it was the keys, not the scrambling mechanism itself, which constitute the disclosure. That would imply that the keys were trade secrets... and anyone who followed the USL vs. BSDI and UC Berkeley case back in the early 1990's should be able to tell you that, once disclosed, a trade secret is no longer a trade secret.
Can someone shed some light on this for me?
-- Terry
Lincoln (Score:2)
Re:It serves these scofflaws right. (Score:1, Informative)