[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600's request for rehearing en banc denied
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600's request for rehearing en banc denied
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 17:43:02 -0700
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20020522084611.A20419@lemuria.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On 22 May 2002 at 13:29, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
Date sent: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:29:09 -0400
From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600's request for rehearing en banc denied
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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
> >>computer listing
> >> 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.
Damning with faint praise....Either the court was taken in by the "hacker"
label or else they lack the fortitude to do anything other than write up a
record the USSC can make final judgment. In either case, they are less than
impressive as either easily mislead or merely bookeepers. But you have a good
point about the USSC. THe question is if the sanctity of the intellectual
property protection arguement is enough to sway them.
> 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.
Personally, I think the "clear and present danger" test is more clear and
present here ;-)
> Arnold Reinhold