Re: [dvd-discuss] The power of a click

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

CDMA or DMCA? (although does anyone remember the threats of 
lawsuits from Qualcomm over IS-95 and the soft handover control 
problem?)

The "click" notion is something of a red herring. Even if you show 
that the court doesn't have a clue they can still admit it and say 
that it doesn't change the basis of their judgement. The court 
accepted without question that the governemnt has a compelling 
intest and that playing a DVD on anything but an authorized player 
was P I R A C Y....

From:           	Jeremy Simmons <jsimmons@langc.tohoku.ac.jp>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] The power of a click
Date sent:      	Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:35:30 +0900
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> > Richard Hartman writes:
> > : Moreover, although a single click is enough to _launch_
> > : DeCSS, I doubt that the operator interaction ends there.
> > : (Admittedly, I have never run DeCSS ... but I assume there
> > : are parameters to tweak & at least a field for an output
> > : filename to be filled out, plus another click on a "go"
> > : button ...)
> >
> 
>  Peter Junger Commented
> > Is it true that DeCSS can be launched with  a single click.
> > Is there a DeCSS icon?  Was there a DeCSS icon for the
> > program that 2600 published on its web site?
> >
> > The claim by the 2d Circuit that there is such an ability and
> > such an icon is not consistent with the facts (including the
> > facts as found by Judge Kaplan).  It also appears to be essential to
> > the panel's holding.
> >
> > That seems to me to be a pretty good basis for seeking a rehearing.
> 
> I think that this discussion has changed from the focus of the
> judgement. The reason the click is dangerous is not because it starts
> up DeCSS but because it makes a immediate download of DeCSS possible.
> As I read the judgement the court seems to think that all the 2600
> links create automatic downloads and that might put DeCSS within the
> reach of people who are not well intentioned hackers. This makes the
> posting of a link subject to an injunction.
> 
> My impression was of the court's argument was that it just assumed
> that an unauthorised decryption programme breached the CDMA and merely
> focussed on the validity of the injunction. That seems to me to have
> much more far reaching problems for far more computer users.
> 
> Simmons