Source Code != Protected Speech
August 17, 2000 3:40 PM   Subscribe

Source Code != Protected Speech
posted by quonsar (9 comments total)
 
while this decision is just wrong, it amuses me at the ineffectiveness of the court system on cyberspace. These programs are out there, ripe for the taking and always will be regardless of a court's ruling.
posted by owillis at 4:22 PM on August 17, 2000



But will 2600 still be out there?
posted by captaincursor at 4:30 PM on August 17, 2000



Will copyleft be busted for making the t-shirt?
posted by mathowie at 5:50 PM on August 17, 2000


Isn't it about time a bunch of judges from all over the world sat down and drew a draft of the "weblaw"? It annoys me that the legal system -which obviously can't deal properly with anything regarding code and "cyberspace"- also deals with it completly differently depending on which country you, or your server, or ther recepient of your data happens to be in.
posted by dabitch at 6:29 PM on August 17, 2000


I hope Copyleft is just told to stop, rather than being sued.

2600 will always be out there. They may take a hit in the wallet, but the people doing 2600 have done it long before it became popular.

The most interesting quote from this:

"Today's landmark decision nailed down an indispensable Constitutional and Congressional truth: It's wrong to help others steal creative works," MPAA Chairman Jack Valenti said in a statement.

I predict bad things for Napster. This case sets a precedent that hurts my world view.
posted by cCranium at 6:28 AM on August 18, 2000


It argues there are no free speech issues at stake, since the sole purpose of the DeCSS software in question is to circumvent copyright protection and gain unauthorized access to DVD movies.



What part of "legally accessing things you've purchased on your chosen device" wasn't clear to the judges?

Or didn't the lawyers make the argument?
posted by baylink at 7:12 AM on August 18, 2000


"legally accessing things you've purchased on your chosen device"

Is that the actual text of the DMCA? Interesting. I think the lawyers made that kind of argument, but the MPAA said that no, you don't actually get the rights when you buy a DVD, you get them when you play a DVD on a licensed player...

As for the code == speech bit, from what I read, it seemed that the judge didn't say that code was necessarily not speech, but rather than it wasn't solely expressive (which, I admit, is true), and since the functional part of the code was used to violate the circumvention bit of the DMCA, it was illegal to traffic in it.

But my problem with the ruling was that the actual order was unclear on exactly what was illegal. David Touretzky, a defense witness (and creator of the Gallery of CSS Descramblers), attempted to show that the code was essentially the same thing as an English description of the algorithm (it would be trivial to convert the English description into the code, given basic knowledge of C programming). Assuming the judge bought that (and he seemed to, based on the transcripts), would such a description also be banned?

I wrote about this on my weblog today, although not as in depth as I would like: http://www.stuffeddog.com/archive/post/517. Maybe I'll extend it some when I get more time.
posted by daveadams at 8:46 AM on August 18, 2000


Is that the actual text of the DMCA? Interesting. I think the lawyers made that kind of argument, but the MPAA said that no, you don't actually get the rights when you buy a DVD, you get them when you play a DVD on a licensed player

It may well *not* be the exact text.

And frankly, I don't givr a rat fuck what the MPAA said; they don't make laws.

Well, of course, they *do* these days, but they shouldn't. Corporations better stop thinking they run the country; I give it about a year before the first one is firebombed.

The Second American Revolution is not far below the surface...
posted by baylink at 8:12 PM on August 20, 2000


I don't givr a rat fuck what the MPAA said; they don't make laws.

Well, I agree that what the MPAA thinks doesn't necessarily matter. I agree that when you purchase a DVD you should be able to use the contents in whatever way you see fit for personal use, anyway. I was just stating their argument, and I wanted to clarify that I don't agree with them since I couldn't tell if you thought I did or not.
posted by daveadams at 8:28 AM on August 21, 2000


« Older Clinton Grand Jury Probe   |   Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments