[hackmeeting] Fwd: 'DeCSS' DVD descrambler ruled legal

[Arturo Quirantes]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Una buena noticia sobre el caso DeCSS.  Para quien no esté el loro:
la asociación de industrias de música norteamericanas (RIAA) demandó
a una persona que redactó el llamado DeCSS.  Esto no es más que un
driver para poder ver los DVD bajo Linux.  La RIAA dijo que qué es
eso de hacerlo sin su permiso, y demandó a todo bicho viviente que
tuviese algo que ver con el DeCSS.  Técnicamente puede hacerlo
gracias a una ley llamada DMCA sobre copyright.  Parece que un juez
por fin ha puesto las cosas en su sitio.  Una birra por él.

=============================================

Mensaje enviado (forwarded)
De: Nexus <nexus en patrol.i-way.co.uk>
A: ukcrypto en chiark.greenend.org.uk <ukcrypto en chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Fecha: Friday, November 02, 2001, 12:06:00 AM
Asunto: 'DeCSS' DVD descrambler ruled legal

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

'DeCSS' DVD descrambler ruled legal
By Thomas C Greene in Washington
Posted: 01/11/2001 at 21:50 GMT


The Copy Control Association (CCA), which was granted a preliminary
injunction against Andrew Bunner and other Webmasters, was handed its
head
in a California appellate court Thursday.

The trial court had granted the injunction against publishing Jon
Johansen's
DeCSS DVD descrambler, but Brunner appealed on First Amendment
free-speech
grounds.

The CCA scoffed at the notion, claiming that the source code has a
mere
practical function and no expressive content.

The court saw it differently:

"Like the CSS decryption software, DeCSS is a writing composed of
computer
source code which describes an alternative method of decrypting
CSS-encrypted DVDs. Regardless of who authored the program, DeCSS is
a
written expression of the author's ideas and information about
decryption of
DVDs without CSS. If the source code were compiled to create object
code, we
would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones would
not
convey ideas.

"That the source code is capable of such compilation, however, does
not
destroy the expressive nature of the source code itself. Thus, we
conclude
that the trial court's preliminary injunction barring Bunner from
disclosing
DeCSS can fairly be characterized as a prohibition of pure speech."

And this, the court reminds us, is presumed unconstitutional unless
proven
otherwise, and of course the CCA offered no such proof:

"Prior restraints on pure speech are highly disfavored and
presumptively
unconstitutional. (Hurvitz v. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1232,
1241.)
'In the case of a prior restraint on pure speech, the hurdle is
substantially higher [than for an ordinary preliminary injunction]:
publication must threaten an interest more fundamental than the First
Amendment itself. Indeed, the [US] Supreme Court has never upheld a
prior
restraint, even faced with the competing interest of national
security or
the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.'"

The conclusion was self-evident:

"We hold only that a preliminary injunction cannot be used to
restrict
Bunner from disclosing DeCSS. The order granting a preliminary
injunction is
reversed." And then, for a final twist of the knife, "Defendant
Andrew
Bunner shall recover his appellate costs."

Well done. Now break out those old Copyleft t-shirts and celebrate. ®






============ Fin del texto original ==========

- -- lunes
Salu2.  Arturo Quirantes

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBO+Y7zNPjg85OIDHsEQLO6ACg9mYuTSUyuil6SxIXmsNrMnjUW8IAniT/
8uox6PePlBqE/q8qfQOYutIV
=nRKb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----