This is why no one in the US has gone after anyone posting DeCSS code in
this instance libdvdcss.
FYI: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/NY/appeals/opinion.html
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
August Term 2000
Argued: May 1, 2001 Decided: November 28, 2001
Finally Submitted: May 30, 2001
Docket No. 00-9185
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., PARAMOUNT PICTURES
CORPORATION, METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC.,
TRISTAR PICTURES, INC., COLUMBIA PICTURES
INDUSTRIES, INC., TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT
COMPANY, L.P., DISNEY ENTERPRISES INC., TWENTIETH
CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
ERIC CORLEY, also known as Emmanuel Goldstein,
and 2600 ENTERPRISES INC.,
Defendants-Appellants,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor.
.
.
.
.
.
(way down at the end)
.
.
.
Posting DeCSS on the Appellants' web site makes it
instantly available at the click of a mouse to any person in the
world with access to the Internet, and such person can then
instantly transmit DeCSS to anyone else with Internet access.
Although the prohibition on posting prevents the Appellants from
conveying to others the speech component of DeCSS, the Appellants
have not suggested, much less shown, any technique for barring them
from making this instantaneous worldwide distribution of a decryp
tion code that makes a lesser restriction on the code's speech
component.29 It is true that the Government has alternative means of
prohibiting unauthorized access to copyrighted materials. For
example, it can create criminal and civil liability for those who
gain unauthorized access, and thus it can be argued that the
restriction on posting DeCSS is not absolutely necessary to
preventing unauthorized access to copyrighted materials. But a
content-neutral regulation need not employ the least restrictive
means of accomplishing the governmental objective. Id. It need only
avoid burdening "substantially more speech than is necessary to
further the government's legitimate interests." Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). The prohibition on the
Defendants' posting of DeCSS satisfies that standard.30
On 11/28/05 2:08 AM, "ryan" <ryanag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 19:49, Tim Edwards wrote:
>> Bryan J. Smith wrote:
>>> 2) Repository hell affects _most_ other package distros, including
>>> Debian. Ubuntu and other Debian-based distros get around them by
>>> including software that may not be legally redistributed.
>>
>> Just out of interest what do Debian, Ubuntu and others distribute that
>> is illegal? And even if they do how does having illegal software help
>> get around repository problems?
>
> Illegal probably isn't the correct word in all cases.
>
> A great example is the RPM libdvdcss - it allows de-encryption of commercial
> DVDs so that they can played (or illegally copied) under Linux.
>
> It may be a DMCA violation to use libdvdcss since it provides features (like
> DVD ripping, ignoring of country codes, and screen capture) that can be used
> to get around DVD-protection schemes.
>
> Interestingly, no one has ever challenged the use of libdvdcss and it probably
> *isn't* illegal. If it was challenged in court, it would *probably* be ok to
> use since no one has produced a way to play DVDs under Linux with commercial
> software....although courts may order some of its features removed (like
> ignoring country codes).
>
> As if this wasn't a grey enough area already, the DMCA has no authority
> outside the USA.
>
> In some countries, personal use of strong encryption software is banned. In
> those countries I assume CentOS is totally illegal out of the box since it
> ships with OpenSSH, and can not be removed during installation.
>
> Generally, distros like CentOS/Fedora/OpenSUSE/Debian try to stick to all GPL
> licensed packages in their repos (which is no guarantee that they will be
> legal everywhere). For a list of RPMs that are fully supported, but kept out
> of OpenSUSE (SUSE includes them in the boxed version) since they aren't
> licensed via the GPL see here:
> http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/SUSE_LINUX_10.0.42_(i586).html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>
