On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 12:56:51PM +1100, Alexander Else wrote:
| The thing that gets me is why has the case gone on for so long in the US
| if proving that DeCSS doesn't aid in DVD copying is as simple as
| demonstrating duplicating a CD with a DVD burner without use of DeCSS?
Well,
- for the DVD CCA case they're asserting theft of trade secret
(well, redistribution of "improperly acquired" trade secret)
The first thing was the injunction against distribution (to
protect the secret - no matter that it's widely available) -
they didn't get their initial request, but a few days later,
after consideration, they were granted a preliminary
injunction against posting the code (but not the injunction
against linking) pending the _actual_ hearing about whether
the decss is in fact supposed to be an improperly obtained
secret.
This case has nothing to do with the copying issue except in
so far as that affects the degree of harm the plaintiffs can
credibly claim.
- for the MPAA cases are using section 1201 (AFAIR) of the US bill
associated with the WIPO treaty, which bans reverse
engineering (with exceptions) and programs which circumvent
copyright access control facilities. These cases are also
currently in the preliminary injunction stage pending the
real hearing. If you read the transcript of the New York
you'll see that a) they had a somewhat hostile judge and b)
the defense arguments were a bit poorly expressed, partly due
to lack of preparation.
Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson, DoD#743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/
Bye and bye, God caught his eye, - Epitaph for a waiter.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
