[NTLUG:Discuss] Let Freedom Ring! DeCSS code is speech! ...well, almost.

[Steve Baker]

"J. Jentink" wrote:

> It does not matter if the source code is interpretted directly,
> converted to byte code and interpetted, or compiled to machine code
> and executed directly. All methods represent a use of the source code.

Well, we have established that source code is a method of communication
that has all the rights of speech...so we can all legally *LOOK* at the
DeCSS code (and wearing my DeCSS source code T-shirt is no longer illegal).
 
> The First Ammendment right talked about in the article is only to
> _publish_ the source code. This does not include the freedom to _use_
> the source code.

I think that remains to be seen.  Do we (as software engineers who
'speak' in source code) need to run the code to extract all the meaning
out of it?

I think so.  Some programs are sufficiently complex that only by running
them can I understand what they do.  Preventing me from running the source
code is somewhat akin to preventing me from translating some free speech
I hear in French into English so that it's clearer to me.

However, 

> That unfortunately is determined by other laws and
> the courts. So, it is legal to write a book about making illegal drugs
> but you can go to jail for using the book to make these drugs.

Right - but you *can't* go to jail for simply reading it and taking no
illegal action as a result of reading it.  Executing the DeCSS code is
really no different to reading that book - and it SHOULDN'T be illegal
unless the result of executing it is to perform some illegal act.

If I invented a super-clever computer that could OCR that book, turn the
recipies in it into commands to drive a robot arm that manufactured some
drugs - THEN I wouldn have (in effect) 'executed the book to produce
drugs' - then that would be illegal.

Using the DeCSS code to decrypt DVD's for the purpose of making a million
copies and selling them or posting the resulting decrypted video on
Napster is more akin to using the book to make the drugs - and that should
be illegal.

Executing the DeCSS code on my Linux PC to watch a DVD that I purchased through
normal channels shouldn't be illegal since the end result wasn't illegal.

What's bad about the DMCA is that this *is* illegal because "I circumvented
the copy protection".  This latest legal ruling doesn't change that.

If I had paid the Microsoft Tax, I could view the exact same DVD on the exact same
screen without breaking any laws.

The stupidity here is that whilst the DMCA prevents me from doing something perfectly
innocuous and 'reasonable' (viewing my DVD under Linux), it completely fails to
prevent me video taping the output of my legal DVD player and selling the copy
to my neighbour.

The old copyright laws had all the bases covered - the DMCA is just a pain in
the ass.

> As somebody once said:
>   "To decide if it is ethical,
>        ask what it would be like if everyone did it.
>    To decide if it is moral,
>        ask what it would be like if it were done to you.
>    To decide if it's legal, take seven years of Law degree and
>        forget the rules above."

Regrettably, that's true.

-- 
    NOTE: MY HOME PAGE HAS MOVED TO http://www.sjbaker.org - PLEASE
               UPDATE YOUR LINKS AND BOOKMARKS ACCORDINGLY!

----------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------------
Mail : <sjbaker1 at airmail.net>   WorkMail: <sjbaker at link.com>
URLs : http://www.sjbaker.org
       http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net http://tuxkart.sf.net
       http://prettypoly.sf.net http://freeglut.sf.net
       http://toobular.sf.net   http://lodestone.sf.net