Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote:
> So..if I come across the 20 masters to all the year 2000 model toyotas and
> make them freely available to everyone so that stealing a new toyota is a
> trivial event, I shouldn't be punished for that?
good grief, how many ways can you miss the point?
the point is that DeCSS is both
1) an explanation of how to crack a DVD
2) an explanation that can run on a computer that can crack a DVD
you can go to an encyclopedia and find out how car locks work.
buy books about locksmithing. you can read all about picking
locks. But you generally need a permit to POSSESS the physical
locksmithing tools.
I am in favor of requiring locksmiths to have permits.
but that is because there is a separation between
"knowing about the thing" and "the thing itself".
software has no separation. And therefore I say you have to
err on the side of calling it "knowing about the thing"
and protect it under the Freedom of Speech ammendment.
the other option is to say
"it is illegal to describe an illegal act in such detail that
even a complete moron could implement it."
(i.e. a computer could run your description)
This says that it is illegal to know too much.
THAT is the point. If software is "the thing itself",
then any algorithm that describes DeCSS in sufficient
detail is illegal. It becomes illegal to KNOW ABOUT
DeCSS, because there is too small of a division
between KNOWING and DOING for Sony to be comfortable with.
and I am adamantly against WIPO making it illegal
to reverse engineer ANYTHING.
Knowledge can NOT be made illegal.
the right to know must override someone's desire to
copy-protect their friggin DVD. If they can make laws
about what goes on in my head, we're all screwed.
Greg London
