So, the DMCA is winning, and 2600 just rolled over and played dead.

I can understand their point – of course they don’t have a prayer, none of us have a prayer against the powers that be in a land where justice is for sale to the highest bidder – but I’m still saddened.

Next up, pallidium. The consumers apparently accepted XP, so I suspect they’ll accept Pallidium too. And motherboards that won’t run linux..

It would appear that we’re too scared of everything from terrorism to economic collapse to care that we’re losing our freedom.

Well, said freedom was mostly illusion anyway. But we’re losing even the illusion, and we don’t, for the most part, care.

Sad, very sad.

Why can’t we turn off the TV?

4 Responses to “MPAA / DeCSS”

  1. jcurious Says:

    they didn’t “roll over” they didn’t want a supreme court decision made in the current climate

  2. sheer_panic Says:

    Well, that’s what I don’t quite understand. If they don’t appeal now, don’t they waive their right to an appeal and leave the earlier decision standing?

    Is their hope that at some later date, some future court will be willing to sit on the case, where the current one would just ignore it? I don’t see things getting better in the DMCA arena, I see them getting worse.

    Anyway, doesn’t this open the possibility for the assorted plaintiffs in the case to then sue 2600 into oblivion?


  3. brassratgirl Says:

    No, they still have the option. The supreme court, bear in mind, gets several hundred _times_ more cases ever year than they hear. The vast majority of cases never get heard… they pick cases based on the following, usually — a) it’s a huge thing that’s garnered enormous amounts of attention, which Decss hasn’t (copyright as a whole has, but this is one small piece of copyright) b)it’s a new precendent-setting case that is _also_ of importance to the country. Now you could argue that this is important, or you could argue that it’s an entertainment media, that you can rent the damn things, that there’s still vhs, and that what you’re talking about is hollywood movies in the first place — not exactly a national security issue. Furthermore, copyright has been discussed by the s.c. in the last few years, and furthermore we’re talking about someone who broke existing law — and that’s a much harder thing to get overturned than say a freedom of speech case where it’s ambiguous that there were any laws involved; e.g. those school/coke sponsorship cases.
    2600 can appeal in the court that they were in, and if you read eff’s statement they claim to have other cases up their sleeves.
    Furthermore, there’s a question of money. It’s _hard_ to take a case to the s.c. It’s not like you or I could do it. Any lawyer who goes up against that bar has to be specially eligable to practice in front of the s.c. And it takes a fuck load of money, because of the years+ of research you have to do to make a good case. Got a million $ to give to e.f.f.? I thought not. And finally, although perhaps a good cause, I am not convinced that there is a good, bulletproof case to be made. Not yet. Not a _legal_ case.
    And yeah, you can try every year for the s.c. Most cases that make it have been trying for a while.
    Ponder and get back to me.
    re: 2600 getting sued: of _course_ they’re going to get sued. They’ve been getting sued since the beginning of time. Managed to pull through so far… it probably is a money/time/resources/putting up a straw man to save the mag issue. What can I say? Anyway, isn’t the code out on the street? I think it’s a matter of practicality at this point. If you’re that irked, do a little grassroots action. Start mass mailings of letters with the code on it to Disney corp. print it on buildings. Whatever… you gotta ask yourself though, is this the right battle to spend everyone’s energy on, or should we perhaps, considering the current climate, focus on privacy issues, which are going to be null and void in oh, about three minutes?

  4. brassratgirl Says:

    Anyway, keep your shit together. XP, Decss, and Pall-whatsit are three very different issues, technically and in the legal realm which is what we’re talking about here. This is not a question of what should happen on the street … this is a question of what can play in the supreme court which is a rarified and difficult arena. Think about how hard it is to explain technical issues to laypeople, and then think about ABC butchering it in their nightly news coverage of the s.c., heard third hand through the interpretatiosn of three lawyers — or worse yet distorting it b/c they’re owned by disney. What precisely could you do?

Leave a Reply