News.com Links to DeCSS Program 289
zorglubxx writes "In less than a week News.com has published 2 articles ([Oct 3] and [Oct 7]) talking about copyright law and the DMCA where they LINK to DeCSS. Not source but compiled Windows version called DeCSS.exe. News.com know that 2600 lost their fight for linking to DeCSS so I wonder why they are doing this. Trying to make a point? Civil disobedience? An honest mistake?" Update: 10/08 02:51 GMT by T : An anonymous reader writes "In the time between when I read the first and second referenced articles, the links were updated to point the DeCSS gallery rather than DeCSS.exe"
Laws only work (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Laws only work (with money) (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
I wish.:(
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
I promise!
In related news... (Score:2, Funny)
Sorry... couldn't resist :p
Re:In related news... (Score:2, Funny)
In MORE related news... (Score:5, Funny)
And how many degrees of separation is this from Kevin Bacon?
Re:In MORE related news... (Score:2, Funny)
0. Oracle of Bacon at Virginia links to the
1. CS Department Search Page which can
2. search for "DECSS news.com" (google) which links to
3. Slashdot, which links to
4. News.com which links to
5. DeCSS.
Re:In MORE related news... (Score:4, Funny)
Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, if CNN.com would have originally linked to DeCSS do you think it would have gotten sued? (I know, pretend for a moment that it wasn't part of the AOLTimeWarner conglomerate though, and you'll get my point.)
Hopefully, a court case WILL come of this, and maybe we'll get a Judge with a clue that realizes the DMCA restricts your First Amendment rights.
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really believe that if the Most Important Person in the World(tm) himself, ie: the head of the RIAA, were to post a link to DeCSS, the rest of the RIAA would go after him like a herd of rabid bunnies on crack.
That said... Yes. News.com is a more 'valid' publication in the eyes of many than 2600 ever will be, and thus harder to go after for posting legitimate news... But "harder" doesn't mean "impossible". Remember, the RIAA is well-funded by all the CDs they overprice, and all the artists they rip off.
-Sara
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:3, Interesting)
A financially-even fight is a losing fight if one party is backed by legislation. It's dubious that News.com would want to fight that fight, unless they're seeking to overthrow the DMCA. The "Freedom of speech" argument wouldn't really fly here, as they could have just as easily made that link into one that leads to a page DESCRIBING DeCSS. (I would have actually found that more appropriate. I clicked on the link in my needing-caffiene stupor, and was quite surprised to find out that I had just downloaded the software. Imagine my mother following the link.
Either way, it's a bit inappropriate for a mainstream publication to provide a direct link to software and not specifically state that it is a direct link to software, and not just a link to a page describing software. Particularly when the software performs an illegal activity. Imagine the panic that someone could feel when they're reading the article, click the link, and are confronted with the fact that they just downloaded something that the article clearly identifies as illegal, and (like most computer users) cannot figure out how to remove it from their system.
-Sara
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's really the definition of "Civil Disobedience".
I choose not to obey the DMCA every time I watch a DVD on my Linux machine at home. It takes a pretty shitty law to make watching a movie that I bought on my computer a crime. Its also a really pathetic act of civil disobedience, I mean come on I'm just watching a movie. Arresting people for doing this would be absolutely ridiculous.
These corporations that are pushing this crap better start watching themselves. In the war against the consumer the consumer is just beginning to understand how much control over what they buy that they are losing. If the restrictions being talked about for HDTV (copy bits and all that garbage) come to pass I think that will be the last straw.
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you're half right. The half you left out is that you do it in a publicly conspicuous manner, so as to attract the attention of law enforcement, and be willing to pay the consequences of arrest and apprehension. Disobeying bad laws in the privacy of your parents' basement doesn't really count as "civil disobedience".
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually because being arrested for watching makes it a "good" act of civil disobedience because it is so rediculous.
The stupider the thing you are arrested for under a law the more ridiculous the law looks
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah, that was the definition 100+ years ago. Today it involves chaining yourself to things, overturning cars, smashing windows, generally blocking public right-of-ways and using/damaging private property and then claiming that the First Amendment protects all this. None of it actually involves breaking a specific law that you're protesting.
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'm sorry if Linux players didn't pay a royalty. Actaully they (Xine in my case) did not do anything wrong, I had to take action to enable DeCSS myself, and this is precisely why Xine operates that way. One would think that if they wanted to, they could pay a royalty and offer a player capable of playing any encrypted DVD.
But again why should it be against the law to use my DVD's any way I see fit. I can modify my car any number of ways, and while it may void the warranty, it does not make the modifications themselves illegal.
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:2)
Which is really what's needed to overturn the DMCA -- bigger, badder lawyers than those owned by its proponents.
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:2)
The constituion, other laws, and (hopefully) judges that can see the problems with the DMCA.
The "Freedom of speech" argument wouldn't really fly here, as they could have just as easily made that link into one that leads to a page DESCRIBING DeCSS.
They could have declined to run the story as well. "Freedom of speech" means they have the right to report on a newsworth item pretty much any way they see fit. The link to the file was relevant to the article. Arguing they could have written the story differently is a direct attack on their freedom to speak. It's no different than saying that blacks could have simply sat in the back of the bus.
I would have actually found that[DESCRIBING DeCSS] more appropriate.
That is a reasonable oppinion, but you were not the author or the editor. Apparently they had a different oppinion.
it's a bit inappropriate for a mainstream publication to provide a direct link to software and not specifically state that it is a direct link to software
I don't know how you expect links to work, but when I see a link that ends in ".exe" I reasonably expect it to point to a piece of software. Both links were labeled "DeCSS.exe".
the software performs an illegal activity.
That makes about as much sense as saying a can of spraypaint preforms an illegal activity.
Imagine the panic that someone could feel when they're reading the article, click the link, and are confronted with the fact that they just downloaded something
Which highlights the stuipidity of making "possession of information" a crime. Even if you delete it, it is still on your hard drive and you are still guilty of possession. Putting you in prison for your "crime" is blatantly unjust. Someone should only be a criminal when they actually do something, and only when that action actually harms or endangers someone.
-
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's silly nitpicking, I suppose, but you're wrong. The RIAA is well-funded by all the fools who buy the over-priced CDs. The distinction seems important, because it shows where to attack their funding: not by going after the CDs or the ``artists'', but by educating the fools.
HAH! So much for hope on that front ...
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:2)
Actually if the sub-editor fired him, I suspect verry heavilly that the union and every other journalist on the planet would blacklist the subbie and refuse to ever work for him again. You'd be suprised at how far journalists break the rules on a daily basis. Anyway RIAA can't afford the bad publicity on suing a "real" publication. That might just cause cosmic fury upon congress and get the law bounced. Or a judge might rule the story was unwritable minus the link and rule the DMCA a dud.
It's pretty gutsy tho. More power to em.
Not to nitpick, (Score:5, Funny)
If Hillary Rosen ever reads this, she's gonna be pissed.
Re:Not to nitpick, (Score:5, Funny)
Basher: I'm sorry, I thought she was a man.
Sycophant: Damn it, man! You're talking about the head of the RIAA!
Basher: You must admit, she is rather mannish. No offense, but if that's
a woman, it looks like she's been beaten with an ugly stick. Look at her hands, baby! Those are carpenter's hands. I think if everyone were honest, they'd confess that the lady looks exactly like a man in drag.
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:2, Interesting)
Declan--savvy writer that he is--very likely did this for a particular reason. Keep in mind that people who make a living out of (hopefully) careful observation of a situation, as well as grammar, do not make "mistakes" like this.
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course not. CNN would have taken down the link when they got the cease and desist letter. Their lawyers would have told them, "Sure you can fight it, but does that link actually have any value?"
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:2)
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:5, Informative)
14th Amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps 2600.com could file suit under the 'equal protection under the law' clause. Technically, this sort of double standard is unconstitutional:
Now, a literal reading might allow the federal government to be unfair, while requiring fairness from state governments, but I cannot imagine even our frighteningly corrupt supreme court interpreting the clause in such a fashion.
Re:14th Amendment? (Score:2)
But the feds had to keep on keepin' on, 'cause supposedly the law has nothing to do with the desires of the copyright holder. If they behaved differently, and made a habit of it, the entire law could get thrown out by the 14th Amendment. It was my understanding that laws have been removed by the courts due to the 14th Amendment when they are unfairly applied to racial minorities, but not anyone else. I don't have any examples.
Re:14th Amendment? (Score:2, Informative)
Now, a literal reading might allow the federal government to be unfair, while requiring fairness from state governments, but I cannot imagine even our frighteningly corrupt supreme court interpreting the clause in such a fashion.
Why not? They've done it before (well, the opposite, actually). In 1873, as part of the Slaughter-House cases (independent butchers sued the city of New Orleans over the granting of a monopoly on slaughtering rights to some company) the Court declared that national citizenship and state citizenship are two different things. They further stated that national citizenship only had bearing on matters such as interstate travel, and use of waterways. In effect, they removed the protection that was granted to everyone (specifically, this was intended for freed slaves, but it applied to all citizens) by the 14th amendment for almost all matters.
The very next day they used the same arguments to deny a female attorney's right to practice law in the state of Illinois. The state disallowed her, she asserted her 14th amendment rights, and the Supreme Court stripped them away, alluding to a woman's "traditional place in the home".
It gets worse. In 1876 they overturned the conviction of a group of white supremacists that had violently attacked an assembly of blacks, stating that the "equal protection" clause of the amendment didn't apply at the federal level. Only the states could enforce it (it goes back to that national vs. state citizenship thing).
So, yeah, the Supreme Court has shown a willingness to interpret the Constitution in pretty much whatever way will best serve it's political objectives of the day going back a long ways. In the late 19th century, those objectives included white male supremacy.
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:4, Informative)
You bet they'd get sued. CBS, ABC, NBC, et al get served on a regular basis, sometimes for being unwitting, others for a clear display of corporate disobedience. 60 Minutes, a CBS program, has been the target of many such. Sadly, they've toned down their desire to lock horns (probably advice from their legal department to the producer, i.e. "The show is getting expensive to defend, stop revealing damning things about people and businesses.")
Regarding the original post:
Trying to make a point? Civil disobedience? An honest mistake?"
Yes, Declan makes clear his position:
I don't think a clue-by-four could make his position anymore clear.
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely. The judge in the 2600 case said as much. 2600.com was not viewed as disseminating free press, or providing a link point for people interested in fair use, or providing a service for linux people who wanted to view DVDs on their computers.
Instead, the judge saw them as anarchists who thought movies should not be protectable simply because someone somewhere cracked the crypto. He then ruled accordingly.
Defendants, on the other hand, are adherents of a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located. Less radically, they have raised a legitimate concern about the possible impact on traditional fair use of access control measures in the digital era.
Lewis A. Kaplan
United States District Judge
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:3, Informative)
No. Wired [wired.com] has done it too.
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:2)
Re:Exploiting Different Standards? (Score:2)
Go back and read the decision. It is not a double standard. 2600 had been distributing decss.exe as well as linking to it, and in its page of links, made clear the purpose of said links was to disseminate the program, not merely to provide news. There is precedent for enjoining speech to a greater degree against parties who have been found to abuse free speech in the past. This is all discussed in great detail in both Judge Kaplan's decision, and in the 2nd Circuit court decision.
Let me be quite clear, I do not agree with these decisions, but that was their reasoning.
Free Jon Johansen! (Score:4, Informative)
3 reasons (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the author didn't know better?
Because the author loves freedom? (and will soon be unemployed)
Re:3 reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's most likely that the author didn't know better. I mean- hey. How many people can keep up with what is and is not a permissable link? You'd think that an author writing about something like that would know, but... Stranger things have happened.
Another possibility is that Author emails article in to work, article is handed off to low-level drudge HTML markup person who enters it into the system and link-ifies anything that looks like it could be a link. Sees "DeCSS.exe" and thinks "Oh. what's that?" does a search for it on Google, finds a link, and enters the link.
I mean... Most authors can't even handle their own proofreading. Who says they create their own links?
-Sara
Re:3 reasons (Score:2)
Declan McCullagh [politechbot.com] wrote both articles. I'm sure he knew what he was doing.
Ouch! Shows what you know! (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, most authors do handle their own proofreading. Editors (whose time is usually spent doing far more administration than "galley slavery") love writers who submit clean copy. It saves them time, and it makes the author in question look like a real pro who actually knows what they're doing, instead of yet another no-neck yahoo who thinks they can write.
Likewise, a lot of [stc.org] authors [acm.org] can and do create their own links. I should think that Declan McCullagh [google.ca], with his tech-related tearsheets as thick as the average encyclopedia, would be better-suited to defending his ability to write a simple hyperlink (and to opine on the deliberateness -- or not -- of the DeCSS link) than I, but I'm here.
Also, low level process note: For any web-based print medium for which I've written (several, by now), the author generally includes his or her own hyperlinks, if not actual markup. Editorial commentary and/or low-level drudgery only come into it if the links don't work for some reason, in which case the author usually gets an e-mail from the editor advising him or her to change the link and resubmit the revised version. YMMV, especially if the link leads to actionable content...
Unemployed? (Score:2)
Look around. What do you see? An author that loves freedom, and wants to tell the truth to readers no matter what he needs to do, even if he needs to break the law.
Of course he won't be soon unemployed, if something happen news.com will cover his case exclusively and will push this to the media as hard it can. Then, after all the spreading around this subject, they will use this slogan: "The truth, whatever it takes..."
Realists have the world in his hands. Optimists own the world.
Probably an exercise of first amedment rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
AT least I hope thats what their link is all about. I suppose we shall see if it disappears later or not.
Hey does
Re:Probably an exercise of first amedment rights? (Score:2)
Re:Probably an exercise of first amedment rights? (Score:2)
However, just because a particular precedent doesn't apply to a particualar court, that doesn't preclude the judge from taking it into consideration when making a ruling.
Re:Probably an exercise of first amedment rights? (Score:2)
It is easy for any judge to create new law. It is much, much harder to make it stick.
My impression (once again, IANAL) is that there are no hard and fast rules about precedent. Merely tradition. So, in your example, a judge handling a criminal case in New York state is much more likely to give credence to a predent from their Federal Circuit Court than from another Federal Circuit Court, but they are not obligated to do so. In fact, a judge might believe that other court's judgement was right, and their own circuit court's judgement was wrong, and could, in that case decide based on the other court's decision and expect the whole mess to be resolved by a higher court. Furthermore, I would think our New York state court judge would give a case from ANY federal court more credence than a decision from another state court, but there is nothing to say our judge could not consider another state court decision, especially if that state court says something about an issue that New York statute and case law says nothing about.
Once again, IANAL. So I'm really just flapping my gums. But that's the impression I have about law in these here parts. Any lawyers out there to set me straight?
Rhetorical question or what? (Score:5, Insightful)
But given the statement "But when Linux programmers wrote the DeCSS.exe utility to play DVDs on their computers.." with a link to something clearly labelled as a Windows app and the absence of any reference to 2600 or linking, I'd confidently guess that it never occurred to the writer or editor that there could be anything illegal about such a link.
Somebody time it! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Somebody time it! (Score:2)
Bucket loads of free publicity, I'd say.
Re:Somebody time it! (Score:2)
No, I caught that, but I think you're spot-on with the publicity angle. Those links have no clout until they make something like Slashdot.. and then...
Re:Rhetorical question or what? (Score:2)
On the other hand, maybe it wouldn't have been such a bad idea on his part to actually link a Linux version instead of or in addition to the Windows one to make the point a little clearer.
Re:Rhetorical question or what? (Score:2)
Bad guess. The author has been covering the case for ages, for a non-lawyer he's pretty much an expert on the topic.
-
Too-much-rap-at-night dept. (Score:5, Funny)
Someone get Taco coffee, quick.
Note Bene (Score:5, Insightful)
It is NOT illegal to link to DeCSS (Score:5, Informative)
Sometimes I wonder if, for all the extensive coverage of the 2600 trial, if people have any clue what exactly happened.
2600 and 2600 only are not allowed to link to DeCSS, not because of the DMCA directly, but because of the judicial injunction. It is a punishment for the specific defendent. The appeals court explicitly noted that the 2600 linking ban could withstand scrutiny only because it was specific to the defendent and occured after a trial.
Re:It is NOT illegal to link to DeCSS (Score:2)
Re:Can you post something to verify this (Score:2)
How hard was that?
One Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole "guilty by linking" idea relies upon CONTRIBUTORY copyright infringement, which involves at least some sort of encouragement by the entitity/person hosting the link for people to use the linked-to software to infringe copyrights. 2600 has a hard time convincing anyone that they're on the right side of that equation because they're a magazine dedicated to hacking, and because of the particulars of the way in which they were liking to DeCSS-hosting sites.
When the press is involved, First Amendment concerns get very heavy -- heavy enough to outweigh copyright law. More importantly, though, is the thought that contributory infringement (a judge-made doctrine, mind you) probably was not intended to apply to situations like news reporting agencies referring to sites for the purpose of reporting news. If News.com had to worry about things like that, technology reporting would be heavily chilled.
Then again, it could just be a News.com oversight. --- Checkout Greplaw [harvard.edu]
Any bets how long... (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, I think this was just something that got past certain editors. It goes to prove that editors don't ALWAYS understand what their writers put out.
I'd like to think an organization such as Ziff Davis would take the lead and fight this battle; but somehow, I doubt they really care about this issue one way or the other.
My guess is that an editor didn't. And now that we've caught them, I wonder what they'll do.
Re:Any bets how long... (Score:2)
It's CNet. If there was any kind of quality control the homepage would be half blank. My bet is though that the link won't be removed until someone officially starts legal action against them.
Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Once the DMCA stands up to the U.S. Supreme Court, news.com may be a suitable target. But not yet.
Sources and otther DeCSS Goodies (Score:4, Informative)
Chop a few words off the end and go browsing...have fun....:>
innocent? (Score:2, Interesting)
-= PE-SHiELD v0.2 -- (C) Copyright 1998 by ANAKiN [DaVinci] =-
$ od -A x -vs DeCSS.exe
0001d0 PESHiELD
maybe its not as innocent as it looks?
Re:innocent? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know why it's PEShielded, that is odd. But if you're worried you can just use the source [jult.net] instead.
Re:innocent? (Score:4, Interesting)
soooo......whats he tryin' to hide ?
Re:innocent? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:innocent? (Score:3, Funny)
This reminds of when... (Score:4, Funny)
Double standards, indeed.
Hate to say it, but the law needs to catch up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, TV news had trouble too.
and we should care because....? (Score:2)
Really, who cares? This artical is like chilish taunting "HE DID IT, HOW COME HE CAN DO IT WHEN I CAN'T!!!"
Re:and we should care because....? (Score:2)
So... you're saying that the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th amendment to our great Constitution is "childish"? Simply stated, laws must apply to all citizens/groups equally. Bill Gates couldn't get walk away from a murder without liability just because he's a billionaire with friends in high places, nor could a 4-star general engage in espionage without being tried for his crimes just because he's in command of thousands of troops.
News.com is within it's rights (Score:5, Insightful)
But it is unlikely that the DVD-CCA would try something like that. They already have enough bad press in the tech sector, the last thing they need is bad press in mainstream news channels.
This is the same reason slashdot doesn't get raided by some government agency everytime a poster puts a link to DeCSS in a comment. There is no "don't link DeCSS law" and there is no legal ruling (yet...) preventing slashdot from posting DeCSS links in discussions.
Numbers. (Score:5, Funny)
I won't be happy until they air commercials on the TV of Illegal Prime Numbers [utm.edu]
I hear if you use a lossy compression algorithm the number shrinks down to 42.
Totally Irresponsible (Score:5, Funny)
Its simple: if there are no links to DeCSS, then there is no way to reach it. DeCSS would effectively cease to exist in this universe. (It might still technically exist, like a physical object that falls within the event horizon of a black hole, but that distinction is only of interest to philosophers). Some would argue that you could reach DeCSS via non-hyperlink text URLs. Give me a break - that's comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't count as a valid way to pierce the event horizon.
Now, by placing this valid hyperlink, they've created a huge leak in the carefully constructed containment barrier. We might be back almost to square one.
Not a mistake (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's pretty clear that there is one thing this is not: a mistake. Even if they only did this once, I don't see how it could be a mistake. I mean, when was the last time you saw a news story from a legitimate news outlet that linked DIRECTLY to an executable file?
News.com is, perhaps, setting up for a court battle ('cause they want to challenge the DMCA) or this guy is trying to make some sort of point.
For those thinking the author didn't know... (Score:2)
The "DeCSS.exe" was a hyperlink to a DeCSS W32 executable file.
Gee, think he knew...?
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Mistake? No. Human nature? Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
News.com just did what makes sense. The DMCA doesn't.
Has anybody asked? (Score:2)
windows?? (Score:2, Troll)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
And in other, more interesting, news... (Score:2)
Obvious Ploy (Score:2, Funny)
Civil Disobedience? As stated above it's not illegal to link to DeCSS for anyone but 2600 (by way of court injunction.
Freedom fighter? Maybe, but links to DeCSS are all over the place as more than one informative /.'er as noted above.
How about:
You think?
Re:Obvious Ploy (Score:3, Interesting)
News.com does a whole lot better if there's controversy happening somewhere in the IT world. IOW, if it's getting boring, nothing new happening, same run-o-the-mill Microsoft announcements on the front page, most people spend less thatn 30 seconds looking at it. Now, if they get sued, they get to play hero to the geeks and "stand up for user's rights", and in doing so become the centre themselves of a big (they hope) news story. Traffic galore - including getting
IMHO, it's a case of the news reporters manufacturing news. I say let them whore all they want. I'm sure they can bring some bigger legal artillery to a court case - hopefully thier journalistic bretheren. I'll be happy when the DMCA is smacked down no matter who, what or how it's done.
Soko
DeCSS is Just a Symbol (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DeCSS is Just a Symbol (Score:3, Funny)
Need this in a real paper (Score:3, Interesting)
Every time an article mentions RIAA it should be linked, slashdot them every chance we get! - phorm
This is proven illegal in Denmark... (Score:5, Informative)
The weird thing about this case was that all the focus was on the guys maintaining a link list, none of the sites who actually committed the crimes was sued(meaning the sites who actually did the ripping and hosting of the music).
I can understand why they sued the linking guys, BUT(huuuuge but) they should have went for a site shutdown plus maybe a minor fine. They didn't, they sued them for lost profit. Which is the exact same paragraphs that you would get sued by if you copied/ripped the music.
The whole case was build around they where linking directly to the mp3 files(hosted on various warez sites), and they eventually got them convicted(to pay 100000 DKr(roughly 12500$)) on this fact. This of course, effectively meaning that linking directly to illegal files is, here in little old Denmark, considered as serious a offences as making the files available.
So if CNET was doing this in Denmark, they could be in trouble.
If any of you read Danish, you can find the complete court transcript here:
http://sql.dklaw.dk/vl-dom/
Re:This is proven illegal in Denmark... (Score:2)
Big diff in my mind.
Can you say test case? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can you say test case? (Score:2, Funny)
By the way, which link WAS that? (Score:2)
Source is available at that link... (Score:2, Interesting)
There's also something about WMA in there. I have not looked at it, but I suspect that it's a way to circumvent the DRM that's built into the WMA format.
Why DeCSS is protected speech. (Score:2, Informative)
- Posting DeCSS as journalistic material as part of a news article.
- Posting DeCSS as a form of political protest.
- Using DeCSS as educational material.
It's unfortunate that 2600 dropped the case. BTW, personal favorite DeCSS site is here [cmu.edu].An ancient mirror (Score:2)
I think they have quickly come to realize that the more they persue this software the more it spreads. Remember when 2600 was forced to remove their copy of the software? It immediately sprouted up on hundreds of hundreds of sites, all listed in a number of different forums (including
The DMCS provides some nice protections against liability for ISP's, but the anti-reverse engineering aspects of it relating to copyright content controls are rediculous and need to be nullified ASAP.
Reason for DeCSS link (Score:2, Insightful)
uh...... all this speculation as to why news.com posted a link to the DeCSS program is all fine and good. But has anyone bothered to actually email the site, or the articles' author to find out why they put the link into the story?
.....Or shall we just continue speculating?
dan.
An even more important question.. (Score:2)
a .exe file is source (Score:3, Interesting)