Laptops Desktops Monitors & LCDs Graphics Cards Handhelds Phones Software Networks Printers More »
search
advertisement
AnchorDesk

AnchorDesk Staff
Free Speech On The Web? Don't Even Talk About It

AnchorDesk Staff
ZDNet AnchorDesk
Thursday, August 24, 2000
TalkBack!Add your opinion
Despite freedom of speech, you still can't shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

Now you can't even point to the person shouting.

At least that's one way of reading the ruling in the DVD hacker case.

And that's scary.

If you weren't paying attention, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan last week slapped hacker site 2600.com with a major defeat. He ruled that source code doesn't get the protection of free speech.

The ruling is just another shot in the battle over copyright and free speech on the Net. The same fight has seen file-swapping sites such as Napster and MP3.com on the ropes. But the precedent set by this ruling could be the most sweeping. And the final resolution may ultimately be a political one. Let's take a closer look at the case and the ruling's dark side. Then I want to hear what you think.

WHAT CORLEY DID
Eric Corley posted a link to DeCSS, software for unscrambling DVD code on his 2600.com site. The code allows DVDs to be copied and traded over the Internet. The original creator of the program, a 16-year-old Norwegian boy, says he built it so Linux users could listen to DVDs.

The ruling is based on a section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The section makes it illegal to circumvent copyright protection technologies or make available technologies "developed or advertised to defeat technological protections against unauthorized access to a work."

THE RULING'S DARK SIDE
Not only did Judge Kaplan bar Corley from posting the code, he said the hacker/journalist was not allowed to link to sites where the same software was available for downloading.

Corley responded by listing only the names of sites with the code. He says it will take another court order to get him to remove those.

The film industry says linking to a site with the DeCSS software is like giving a burglar a lift to a house to rip off. I'm no lawyer, but this interpretation concerns me.

Could linking to a bomb-making site also be illegal? What about a site that sells radar detectors? The answer ought to be no and no, but possibly only because they're not mentioned in the DCMA. Why give the film industry so much extra protection? One thing I do know, the ruling is a wet blanket over innovation.

I also want to know what you think. After all, the politicians you voted for created the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and they may be the ones to replace it if, as some predict, the Supreme Court strikes it down.

What is linking to a site with DeCSS for download more like?
Giving a burglar a ride to his next heist.
Pointing to a man shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

The ruling may be pointless anyway. The software is out there, and getting it back or keeping it off the Web will be like corralling cats. An Australian site has already announced that it will not remove the code from its site. But this is just the beginning of the war between new technologies and fat cats from Hollywood.

Hit the Talkback button and tell me what you think. And tell me if you are, in the words of judge Kaplan, "adherents of a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located." Or, go straight to my Berst Alerts Forum and get fired up about it.

Did someone say fire?

Previous Story  Next Story 

Special sponsor stores
advertisement
Click Here