[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600's request for rehearing en banc denied
At 8:46 AM +0200 5/22/02, Tom wrote:
>On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 07:38:09PM -0700, email@example.com wrote:
>> > I don't think much strategic thinking was involved in MPAA's bringing
>> > this case. They were alarmed and embarrassed by the sudden appearance
>> > of DeCSS on the Internet and sued everyone in sight.
>> All 39,000 other kayakers? They didn't just stick a pin in a
>> although if they used microsoft products to randomly select there's less
>> randomness than can be expected.
>actually, unless I'm mistaken the MPAA's case was pretty targeted. it
>was the DVD CCA in the california lawsuit who sued everyone and his
>dog, including someone who made T-shirts with decss printed on them.
You're right, I confused the two. The only other defendants in the
2600 case were Shawn Reimerdes and Roman Kazan.
At 7:38 PM -0700 5/21/02, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> > o the defendant is a magazine, making First Amendment issues
>>hard to ignore
>>Which Judge Lewis Kaplan chose to completely ignore by showing his prejudice
>>for the "hacker"....and that's something else to consider. To many in our
>>judicial and legislative branch, "hacker" has replaced "certain ethnic", "
>>certain political belief", "certain skin color" as the principle element of
>prejudice...or soon will be.
The Second Circuit did point out that the term "hacker" covers both
serious researchers and miscreants (p.7487). The Supreme Court has
often stated that attempts to restrict unpopular speech deserve
particular attention. In Free Speech Coalition, the evil used to
justify censorship was simulated child pornography. Pedophiles are
way below hackers in the public mind. And again, the defendant is not
a hacker but a magazine that cover hackers.
I hope the Supreme Court will find the heart of this case: the
attempt by the lower courts to bypass well established free speech
jurisprudence by classifying the publication of DeCSS as conduct.
The whole purpose of strict scrutiny is to allow speech that is
exceptionally dangerous to be regulated. Otherwise all regulation of
speech would be banned per se. There is clearly a despised message
here: how to bypass copyright protection methods. If Congress feels
that message must be proscribed, it should pass laws that can survive
strict scrutiny. The DMCA can't.