Re: DMCA

On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:13:54PM -0400, Chris Mohr wrote: > No evidence?? Ever heard of DivX?

Yes, this is a term coined to refer to a particular method of compressing videos for distribution on the Internet.

However, the plaintiffs in the SDNY DeCSS case were not able to provide *any* evidence that DeCSS was used in conjuction with distributing copyrighted videos over the Internet (and this is, I assume, why you mention DivX). The only testimony on that point was hearsay. Plaintiffs stipulated they could provide no evidence. Defendants were denied a chance to present facts about other "ripping" decoders that might have been used in such cases where DivX might be used. MPAA's expensive and highly trained investigators claim there are billions of dollars of videos stolen every year and traded over the Internet, but they cannot produce one instance in which DeCSS was used, or so they testified.

The case was decided not on copyright infringement, but solely on the basis that DeCSS was "circumventing" technology that threatened the financial interests of the movie studios. Circumvention, not infringement.

But where did this new right of copyright holders come from, to limit access to works they publish and sell? How is it that a magazine and web publisher is restrained from future publication of information about a security system which does not work?

This is not Napster or MP3.com. This is a case about the DMCA and whether or not it overreaches the Constitution. I do not encourage anyone to take without paying a music file or video file. But that is not what this case is about, contrary to what the MPAA says. Playing a DVD disc on your Linux machine, after you have bought the disc and a player and the computer and the DVD drive, seems to me not infringement in any way. But this new law against "circumvention" would make it illegal nonetheless. I believe those of us who support a wise copyright law ought to be disturbed, and join in explaining the issues to the appeals court.

....
> >What is happening here is that a piece of computer code is
> >being banned under the copyright law (with prior restraint)
> >because a copyright holder asserts that it might "threaten"
> >their rights to make money--even if there is no evidence
> >to show it can be "infringing" in any normal sense. In my
> >opinion copyright should be used to encourage publication,
> >not to ban all future publication of an expression.
Received on Sat Oct 21 2000 - 02:06:45 GMT