Re: [dvd-discuss]2600 DROPS DECSS APPEAL

[Roy Murphy <murphy(at)panix.com>]

'Twas brillig when Jeme A Brelin scrobe:
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> > http://www.2600.com/news/display.shtml?id=1233
> 
> I was kind of hoping this would go to the Supreme Court.  I knew it
> would lose, but somewhere inside I believed the case would stir up the
> support needed for real revolutionary change.
> 
> I don't know what to think now.

I think it was the right decision.  2600 had a very weak case.  We
need to have protection for source code which performs decryption
and we need to have protection for the Linux tools.  This case was
about neither of those.  The speech argument was weak with an
executable distribution.  The software arguably did nothing but
decrypt and copy VOBs.  The Windows DeCSS was an important step in
developing a Linux player if only as a proof of concept, but once
Linux versions were available, it should have died a natural death.

The CA Trade Secrets case is going nowhere.  The only way to supress
DeCSS is with the DMCA.  This case will come up again and the next
time, it will be a developer and the case could very well go
differently.  Not having an adverse SC opinion will allow that case
to be fully heard.

-- 
Roy Murphy      \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses
murphy@panix.com \  http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html