Court ruling on DVD decryption software
Rich Brown
Another scary part of the ruling was that hyperlinking to information is
the same as hosting it on your own web site. (Do you KNOW what's on all
of the sites you link to? Do you recheck them daily? Hourly?)
We'll see a lot of yelling and screaming on the whole commercial
encryption issue in the next couple years. Yesterday at work I stumbled
across a projection by a research outfit called "Cyber Dialog" (whoever
they are). They say that by 2004 (paid, encrypted) downloads will be a
squeek over a billion dollars (UK folk, 1000 million) and 25% of all
music sales. With that kind of money involved you know the writers and
performers will be told to sit in a corner and be quiet while the suits
hash it out.
EFFs legal strategy in this case has been to assume they would lose the
first round and get stuff into the record for the appeal. Maybe -- if
we're lucky -- when the case gets to the Supremes the ruling will be
along the lines of what they said about the Communications Decency Act.
(9-zip, this law is unconstitutional)
yaakov_h...@my-deja.com
the Napster ruling (not articles or summaries, I have those, thanks).
Napster's brief on Appeal, btw, may be found at
http://dl.napster.com/brief0818.pdf
I think it's well written, but I haven't had the advantage of seeing the
District Court's writtenb opinion.
And holding poarties responsible for cross-linking is not new: see,
e.g., Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky (commercial use established by link to
Jewish outreach organization soliciting funds).
Harold
In article <39A3D4F1...@FreeMars.org>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Maureen O'Brien
>> Another scary part of the ruling was that hyperlinking to information >> is the same as hosting it on your own web site.
Which just goes to show that the judge was a)clueless b)paid off.
I'm sure even his grandmother called him to tell him that was stupid.
"What? You're saying I own the Encyclopedia Britannica? And the whole
genealogy webring? And that if your cousin gets prosecuted for bad
business, I do too? Point and click yourself a brain, sonny!"
If saying something exists and giving a reference = being responsible
for what you reference, there's an awful lot of historians who should go
on trial at Nuremberg.
Maureen, who now hosts all your filk sites. (Shyeah, right.)
http://www.dnaco.net/~mobrien/filk/filklink.html
Rich Brown
> Actually, this part DOES make sense (though the rest of the decision is
> ludicrous). There is no effective difference between a link to a page
> on your server and a page on someone else's.
Not very effective, though. The judge first ordered 2600 to remove the
code from their website. So they did, posting links to other sites
which had the code. The judge ordered 2600 to remove the links. So
they did, posting a text list of sites with the code.
(http://www.2600.com/news/1999/1227-help.html) Not named as a defendant
was the NY Times webiste, which linked to the list of links. (And still
does:
http://search1.nytimes.com/search/daily/bin/fastweb?getdoc+site+site+114484+3+wAAA+decss%7E)
Before I get kabonged for being off topic, here's a site with the code
set to music: http://www.joeysmith.com/~jwecker/descramble.mp3
Well, kinda set to music anyway. The source doesn't rhyme or scan very
well.
Keith Wood
Rich Brown wrote:
>
> We live in Interesting Times.
>
> Another scary part of the ruling was that hyperlinking to information is
> the same as hosting it on your own web site.
Actually, this part DOES make sense (though the rest of the decision is
Blars Blarson
No. When someone links to my page the people who follow that link get
the current version, and only if I still have that page. I can also
enforce access restrictions. (Noone on the MAPS RBL can access my
pages.)
If there is a copy, it soon gets obsolete.
Someone notified me of a case of this recently. Fortunatly, the ISP
that was hosting this page was cooperative and restricted access to
the opsolete copy within a few hours of being notified. (I sent mail
to thier abuse address.) What country is "pt" anyway?
[This is off topic. If you wish to discuss this with me, do so in
email.]
--
Blars Blarson bla...@blars.org
http://www.blars.org/blars.html
"Text is a way we cheat time." -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Keith Wood
Rich Brown wrote:
>
> Keith Wood wrote:
> > Actually, this part DOES make sense (though the rest of the decision is
> > ludicrous). There is no effective difference between a link to a page
> > on your server and a page on someone else's.
>
> Not very effective, though. The judge first ordered 2600 to remove the
> code from their website. So they did, posting links to other sites
> which had the code. The judge ordered 2600 to remove the links. So
> they did, posting a text list of sites with the code.
However, there is a major difference between telling someone where to
find something and giving them a ride to get it.
Crummy ruling overall, but this one small portion of it makes sense.
Arthur Levesque
KW>...However, there is a major difference between telling someone
KW>where to find something and giving them a ride to get it.
So, if I give someone directions to a local brothel, I'm completely
innocent; but if I drive them there and drop them off, I'm just as guilty
as they are (or, more to the point, just as guilty as the people actually
working in the brothel)? Why aren't more taxi drivers in jail then?
--
/\ Arthur M Levesque 2A4W <*> b...@boog.orgy =/\= http://boog.org __
\B\ack King of the Potato People <fnord> "Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!" (oO)
\S\lash Member of a vast right-wing conspiracy (-O-) Urban Spaceman /||\
\/ I was a lesbian before it was fashionable "I hate rainbows!"-EC
Joel Polowin
> Keith Wood (k...@bctv.com) wrote:
> KW>...However, there is a major difference between telling someone
> KW>where to find something and giving them a ride to get it.
>
> So, if I give someone directions to a local brothel, I'm completely
> innocent; but if I drive them there and drop them off, I'm just as
> guilty as they are (or, more to the point, just as guilty as the
> people actually working in the brothel)? Why aren't more taxi
> drivers in jail then?
According to that ruling, you'd be just as guilty even if someone
asked you for directions to some address, and you gave him/her
a lift there, and it turned out that *without your knowledge*,
that location was being used as a brothel.
--
Joel Polowin jpolow...@sympatico.ca but delete "XYZZY" from address
"Mom, did *you* have Chef Boy-Ar-Dee when you were a girl?"
"No, dear, he refused to use protection, so I told him 'No'."
yaakov_h...@my-deja.com
In article <Fzs3D...@world.std.com>,
pci...@antiabuseworld.std.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <gmcgath-E45321...@news.shore.net>,
> Gary McGath <gmc...@REMOVETHISmcgath.com> wrote:
> >A federal judge has ruled that issuing DVD decryption software
violates
> >copyright law, even though the software itself is not in violation of
> >any copyrights. Judge Kaplan rejected the First Amendment argument by
> >saying, "We do not deal here with 'pure speech.' Rather, the issue
> >concerns dissemination of technology that is principally functional
in
> >nature."
> >
> >This is effectively the argument that something can be evil (i.e.,
> >illegal) because of the uses to which it might be put. It also runs
> >contrary, as far as my non-lawyer mind can see, to previous rulings
> >which held that crypto software is protected by the First Amendment,
> >even though it's "principally functional."
There is, in fact, a circuit split on whether crypto code constitues
actual speech. The 9th Circuit has held it is. I believe the 6th Cir.
and the 1st Cir. have held otherwise. I also have a vague memory that
one of these cases is pending before the Supremes for next term, but I
haven't been following crypto closely.
But your non-lawyer mind is missing what us in the cynical "legal
realism" school would refer to as the necessary surrounding facts
("legal realism" is the description of the school of thought founded in
the '30s that the legal theory espoused in decisions is a crock, and
that judges basically decide what the Hell they want to do and
rationalize it later. As one legal realist put it: "The most important
thing in the case is what the judge had for breakfast. If he had a good
breakfast, he'll decide for plaintiff.")
Courts have increasingly been suspicious of government imposed
limitations on speech, but increasingly receptive to corporate
supression of speech as a matter of intellectual property law. Add to
this that the crypto defendants (or plaintiffs in the civil suits) are
usually respectable professors going up against such traditional villans
as the defense department (most of the crypto cases started before
authority was transferred to Commerce).
By contrast, the intellectual property cases put your average
run-of-the-mill computer programmer, usually regarded as a nefarious
"hacker" with a "wild west" attitude, against the shining captains of
industry who service "consumers" (your cue to bleat in unison). What is
frightening is the ease with which courts have disposed of the First
Amendment issues in the commercial context, while expanding the general
doctrine of commercial speech protection for corporations.
That copyright is a government created monopoly, enforced through
government means (e.g., the courts) seems to escape the current
generation of judges.
And for those just waking up to this, it isn't about copying something
for nothing. Courts have been aggressive about copyright as a means of
shutting down consumer criticism when republishing embarassing documents
(e.g., Ford v. Blueoval.com and the Scientology cases), when discussing
media bias (can't find the case at the moment, but it involved a website
which invited subscribers to post newspaper articles and comment,
similar to slashdot) (and indeed, Slashdot itself has now become
embroiled with this in re Microsoft).
Lots of good academic literature has been written on this, particularly
by Cass Sunstein and Yochai Benkler (and a few by yr hmbl obedient,
although I've approached it from a network control perspective rather
than a true IP prospective).
Harold
Mark A. Mandel
: Someone notified me of a case of this recently. Fortunatly, the ISP
: that was hosting this page was cooperative and restricted access to
: the opsolete copy within a few hours of being notified. (I sent mail
: to thier abuse address.) What country is "pt" anyway?
Portugal, not that it matters much in cyberspace.
-- Mark A. Mandel
--
To reply by email, remove the obvious spam-blocker from my edress.