[7725] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
DeCSS and imminent harm ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ernest Hua)
Wed Aug 30 16:09:21 2000
Message-ID: <090825D1E60BD311B8390090276D5C4965DB56@galileo.luminousnetworks.com>
From: Ernest Hua <ernest@luminousnetworks.com>
To: cryptography@c2.net
Cc: Ernest Hua <ernest@luminousnetworks.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:40:20 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C012BA.21755AD0"
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C012BA.21755AD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Can someone point me to the argument where
either Judge Kaplan or some motion picture
industry person claims publication of DeCSS
code results in imminent or irreparable
harm?
It seems to me that if you (whether "you"
refers to a lowly individual or a massive
industry) were warned that doing something
was futile, but you did it anyway, that it
would be YOUR fault that you were dumb
enough to ignore the expert advice, DCMA
not withstanding.
It appears that DCMA is the only way to
"save" their asses right now because the
technology and the fundamental architecture
(of priviledged players) is just broken
from the start, and they knew it.
I personally know that the expert advice
was given, and I think numerous public
"notice" was given, including ones by
Bruce Schneier and others.
So I just don't get why (other than perhaps
Kaplan was too personally close to the film
industry) Kaplan can rule against DeCSS.
I would think that there are similar laws
protecting whistle blowers from be harassed
with massive "damage" civil suits.
Ern
------_=_NextPart_001_01C012BA.21755AD0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2651.75">
<TITLE>DeCSS and imminent harm ...</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Can someone point me to the argument where</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>either Judge Kaplan or some motion picture</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>industry person claims publication of DeCSS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>code results in imminent or irreparable</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>harm?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>It seems to me that if you (whether "you"</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>refers to a lowly individual or a massive</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>industry) were warned that doing something</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>was futile, but you did it anyway, that it</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>would be YOUR fault that you were dumb</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>enough to ignore the expert advice, DCMA</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>not withstanding.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>It appears that DCMA is the only way to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>"save" their asses right now because the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>technology and the fundamental architecture</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>(of priviledged players) is just broken</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>from the start, and they knew it.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I personally know that the expert advice</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>was given, and I think numerous public</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>"notice" was given, including ones by</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Bruce Schneier and others.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>So I just don't get why (other than perhaps</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Kaplan was too personally close to the film</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>industry) Kaplan can rule against DeCSS.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I would think that there are similar laws</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>protecting whistle blowers from be harassed</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>with massive "damage" civil suits.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Ern</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C012BA.21755AD0--
