Feeds

DeCSS arguments invoke free speech

For and against

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Intelligent flash storage arrays

Supplementary briefs have been submitted by both contestants in the appeal of 2600 publisher Eric Corely aka Emmanuel Goldstein, who was barred from posting or linking to the DeCSS descrambling utility last summer by US District Judge Lewis Kaplan.

After hearing oral arguments for and against publishing DeCSS, which defeats the CSS (Content Scrambling System) of DVDs back on 1 May, the Second Circuit US Court of Appeals in Manhattan requested supplementary written briefs addressing the issue of whether Corley's First Amendment rights as a publisher had been violated by the district court.

On the 2600 side, lawyer Kathleen Sullivan argues, among other things, that outlawing links to DeCSS inhibits the free exchange of technical information.

"A link is simply a reference, indicating that certain information is available in a particular place. A link should be enjoined when, and only when, the court would also enjoin a similar reference by a print publication," she reasons.

As for the industry's claim that making DeCSS available inspires criminal activity and must therefore be enjoined, the brief cites the US Supreme Court, which found that "it would be quite remarkable to hold that speech by a law abiding possessor of information can be suppressed in order to deter conduct by a non-law-abiding third party."

"Instead, speaker liability is not allowed 'unless that speech is capable of producing imminent lawless action,'" the brief notes.

On the other hand, industry lawyer Charles Sims claims that DeCSS is not speech, or even information, and therefore is not entitled to First Amendment consideration.

"DeCSS is a device (configured as a program, although it could as easily have been configured as a physical machine....) that accomplishes a mechanical task, namely descrambling and decrypting an encrypted, scrambled DVD and copying its content to a hard drive. It is no more 'speech' than a key to a library or museum," he reasons.

"DeCSS is not information within the meaning of the First Amendment, much less a message; it is, in the government's apt phrase, a 'digital crowbar.'"

Both briefs are well researched and well argued, with the industry side even turning one of Sullivan's earlier arguments to its own advantage.

We find the 2600 brief to be the more persuasive of the two; but of course the real matter here is what the court will make of them. ®

Related Links

The industry brief
The 2600 brief

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

Whitepapers

Why cloud backup?
Combining the latest advancements in disk-based backup with secure, integrated, cloud technologies offer organizations fast and assured recovery of their critical enterprise data.
Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
How to determine if cloud backup is right for your servers
Two key factors, technical feasibility and TCO economics, that backup and IT operations managers should consider when assessing cloud backup.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Security and trust: The backbone of doing business over the internet
Explores the current state of website security and the contributions Symantec is making to help organizations protect critical data and build trust with customers.