California supreme court to hear DeCSS distribution case

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article California supreme court to hear DeCSS distribution case.

While the 321 Studios case
about DVDxCopy is still pending, there will be another lawsuit in the
states on DVD copying. There will be a hearingin a case about distributing the DeCSS code…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/5952-California-supreme-court-to-hear-DeCSS-distribution-case.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/5952-California-supreme-court-to-hear-DeCSS-distribution-case.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

We’re confident the Supreme Court will recognize that DVD-CCA v. Bunner is a classic First Amendment case
first amendment means freedom of speech, not freedom of stealing. The Founding Fathers didn’t put it into the constitution in order to help some idiots in 21st century to abuse it in order to calm their pangs of concience. What’s so difficult to understand? There is free source and there is closed source. Free source can be used by everybody within the limits of GNU, closed source only with the permission of the manufacturer. Same old argument for thousands of years - if others do it, then I am allowed to do it either. Just because CSS is put on T-shirts, doesn’t mean it has become open source. It’s still stolen. You don’t put the slogan “KILL ALL JEWS!” on your sites (well, I hope you don’t…), just because some neo-nazis put it on t-shirts and their sites, do you? but you think it’s legal to steal, because something has been stolen before by others. Hey, I don’t care about the stealing of closed source. In fact, it’s a nice thing. Because the linux gurus cracked windows and stole their NTFS source code I can now access my ntfs partition from within linux, which is a good thing, since I don’t have to reboot the pc if I need to access some file on my ntfs partition. But it’s still illegal! It’s not about the stealing. It’s about the perversion of the first amendment. If you can’t deal with the fact that you are a thief, then don’t steal. Don’t try to obfuscate the fact of thievery. Isn’t it enough that the media like BBC and CNN always try to obfuscate relationships between issues and to present things in untruthful light in order to preserve the hegemony of the state? Now the common people start to follow their example and do exactly the same thing! I’ll set the things straight. It’s really simple in this case: CSS is closed source. If you make it accessible to others, you steal it. What the hell has this got to do with the freedom of speech
[edited by WRFan on 28.05.2003 18:47]


#3

What was posted above I believe is correct, but this “trade secret” isn’t a secret anymore. The DVD people thought that made something fool proof and were proven wrong. It’s pointless going after anyone know because it’s common knowledge. I think it should be a lesson to the companys who made this CSS. They should of made it availble to all computer platforms that are being in used. Since they didn’t, and since the CSS was crap, some smart people made it so they could view it on their computer system, since the companys that made it weren’t going to be bothered. They got what they deserved.


#4

WRFan, what a load of… The argument is the same as the one pop media uses to slur and continue to slur people. Just because someone else wrote or published an article they are allowed to disseminate claptrap without checking if its true or not. They dont care as long as it sells! But its only the originator that gets sued, to bad its all bull. But once something is out in the public domain, is it fair to blame someone for passing it on, you decide.


#5

I agree with NeoRonin… WRFan, what a load of… Firstly I find your analogy of software theft and jews and nazis ill chosen, Secondly, you are a hypocrite, you admit to stealing or using stolen software and then quote the constitution to condemn all else who do similar ( you should get into politics) This case is more about the consumers right to make backups of their legally purchased media, a right, let me add, that was an implied legal act and paid for by the consumer…and if you can tear you eyes away from the constitution you will find out that open source is now being attacked by certain parties within the political and commercial arena… As for the constitution…politicians started wiping their arse on that decades ago… If you want to find out what the opinion on the street is…get down to the street !!!..:X
[edited by Sherrif on 29.05.2003 08:17]


#6

Too right Sheriff! Regardless of where you are there is always at least 1 clause in the law which says that “consumers have the right to back up what they purchase”…well not so in many words. The bottom line is if you made the media / software too expensive companies open themselves up for attack - whether it’s hacking, crack, etc - it will happen. So the solution is not to send one or a thousand people to jail, but try to adjust the prices of merchandises to reflect the current interest rates and standard of living of 99% of the common people out there. Until this is done, hackers, source crackers…you name it will always exist in our generation and generations to come…


#7

If we extrapolate the first amendment we’d say you’ve a right to disseminate all information and so all software - and the difference between the code and the compiled executable surely makes no difference in principle. The reason that this sounds ridiculous isn’t because the first amendment is ridiculous, it’s because the IDEA of COPYRIGHT is fundamentally ridiculous - nothing material is being stolen, how can people be losing out? In practice, they of course can. But the fact is that the ‘copyright’ law is absurd. The home copier doesn’t ‘damage the economy’ (they’re still gonna spend all their £££ somewhere!), he merely doesn’t artifically enhance the profit margins of individual companies in the way they’d like. And people will always feel inclined to support companies for producing great software, regardless of how many cracks and copies are out there - especially companies who NEED the £££! If we restrict prosecutions to those selling others creations by extending the laws on FORGERY, we’ll have a very satisfactory solution. For now : come to Engalnd / Europe! No DMCA, DeCSS legal, comparatively MINISCULE murder rate, free healthcare for all, no death penalty and leaders who can speak English (not just the British ones!). :X


#8

The first amendmant protects the right to say what you want to in public, as long as its not slander. It protects the write to print what you want as long as its the truth. It protects the write to assemble and peacably petition the government for change. It does not protect theives, pirates or vandals from the law. Its these labels that are in question. Is someone who copies a DVD for back purposes a theif or just protecting an investment. Is a kid trying to watch a DVD movie on his Linux box a pirate or a genius. Currently corporate America feels these people are bad because they have lost sight of the fact that people like these people are their bottom line. CDs and DVDs are like shoes. Everyone wants uses them and no amout of preaching will stop people from using them. The only thing to changes the market is invention or precident. Right now that wont set one by allowing backups and they wont/cant invent something new because its costs more than their willing to spend.