DeCSS DVD decryption code ruled LEGAL!

[dieselstation]

another win for Piracy..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/22613.html

 

[squirrelman]

This is good, its about time the courts do something right.

 

[Scott1]

DeCSS has nothing to do with piracy, it was written because the programer wanted to play his DVDs on his Linux box.

 

[nord1899]

Not quite.

The appeals court basically voided the prelimary injuction which prevented the code from being distributed under the grounds that source code is free speech. It has nothing to do with the legality of the source code.

A later injuction could just as well reverse the decision assuming they can prove that the code is illegal.

Check out /. they have a big discussion on it already.

 

[greenfirs]

The decision simply lifts the preliminary injunction.

In other words, DeCSS may remain available until the end of the case, at which time it will be decided whether it should be censored or not.

This is simply a temporary victory, but a meaningful one, because the case is likely to drag on for years.

 

[MustPost]

At first I was all for DeCSS being legal, but now im not so sure.

Why doesn't object code count as free speach, while sorce code does. I mean you can just look at it in assembely can't you? I haven't looked at DeCSS for a while, but as I remeber it its not that complicated a program that you couldn't just read it in assembly.

 

[greenfirs]

<< Why doesn't object code count as free speach, while sorce code does. >>



The source code argument is a thin edge of the wedge argument.

Once you get the Supreme Court to declare source code to be Free Speech, you can then easily make the argument that so-called object code is source code written in a difficult programming language called machine language. You get a couple of crazy skilled elite programmers on the stand, they read off and interpret machine language, and boom, object code gets the same protection that source code has.

The reason lawyers are concentrating solely on source code right now is because this is a more intuitive argument, more likely to appeal to ignorant judges.