Re: DeCSS Injunction

[Jeff Licquia <jeff@luci.org>]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 01:41:48PM -0600, Burke, Jason wrote:
> 
> This was a _federal_ court that granted the injunction, and if the 
> court decides that reverse-engineering (regardless of what DMCA 
> states) is illegal then the Linux community is in for a long, bumpy 
> ride to reverse that decision. The California state court decision only 
> affects the residents of that state, while this decision affects us all.

So I see.  I had not noticed the separate federal case.

It is fortunate that we have free countries in the world, like Norway, 
isn't it? :-)

> Unfortunately, our government has proven that it's more willing to 
> listen to business interests than it is to listen to it's own citizens 
> (after all citizens don't make million dollar compaign contributions).
> If things like this are allowed to go unchallenged then I guarentee
> you we'll lose much more than the right to reverse-engineer 
> software. Imagine, if you will, such things as interface patents,
> cease-and-desist programming orders, trade secret law, and
> intellectual property police. These things are not too far off from
> what I can see in the industry today. 

Let's not get too carried away.  We have enough to worry about without 
dreaming about the potential threats that might be tried.

> Also, if DeCSS is demed illegal then what do you think will happen
> to software that uses it (such as LiViD)? I'm sure the courts won't
> see much difference between the two. The "They can't stop it." argument
> also doesn't hold much water either because the resulting disaster will 
> make life on the Internet practialy unbearable should they every really
> put their mind to trying. I would prefer not to try and fall back on that
> as a defense.

The purpose and use of the software, in this case, is precisely the
determining factor in whether the software is illegal or not.  DeCSS
may well be proven illegal under the DMCA because its only use, as
written, is to crack DVDs.  But LiViD's primary use is to play DVDs on 
Linux, which is protected.  Also, LiViD doesn't use DeCSS; it has its
own code integrated into it for the decryption step.

Life on the Internet wasn't unbearable because of the RIAA, or
Scientology, or the CDA.  Remember the quote from John Gilmore: "The
Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

As a better example, consider the state of encryption software.  Since 
the advent of PGP, no encryption technology developed in the USA has
been successfully blocked from worldwide distribution; one version of
PGP found itself in Italy within a few hours of its release at MIT.
Unlike the hubbub with DeCSS, export of encryption software is a
criminal act, a felony punishable by up to twelve years in prison.
And yet, the government's wrath has been unable to express itself
against a single person.  In fact, the laughable state of export
controls is now being used as a linchpin to bring the barriers down
for good.

Again, this isn't a call for inaction or smug self-assurance.  Action
is certainly needed here, and will be needed for future incidents.
But the number one lesson to learn here is how the Internet completely
changes all the rules, mowing down any obstacle in its quest for
openness and freedom.  Throwing buckets of sand into the wind doesn't
get the sand any farther; you just get that much more sand in your
eye.

--
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@luci.org with
"unsubscribe luci-discuss" in the body.