[free-sklyarov] 2600 Drops DECSS Appeal

[Seth Johnson]

(Forwarded from DVD Discussion list,
dvd-discuss at eon.law.harvard.edu.  Article text pasted
below.  -- Seth)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [dvd-discuss]2600 DROPS DECSS APPEAL
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 16:01:15 -070022, 2002) at 07/03/2002
04:01:17 PM,Serialize complete at 07/03/2002 04:01:17 PM
From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz at aero.org>
Reply-To: dvd-discuss at eon.law.harvard.edu
To: dvd-discuss at eon.law.harvard.edu

http://www.2600.com/news/display.shtml?id=1233

----

2600 DROPS DECSS APPEAL
3 Jul 2002 19:09:42 UTC

Yes, it's true. After numerous consultations with our legal
team and all kinds of internal debate, we have decided that
we've gotten the DeCSS case as far as we can. We won't be
bringing it to the Supreme Court. 

While we share the disappointment many of you will feel, we
think it's very important to understand why this is the
proper course of action. Our chances of the case being taken
up by the Supreme Court were very slim. And it was the
nearly unanimous opinion of all of the legal experts we
consulted that the current Supreme Court wouldn't take our
side. Either of these results could have caused a setback to
the overall fight that we're engaged in. To continue would
have meant putting our egos ahead of the best legal
strategy, something we're not about to do. 

The DeCSS case may have focused on us but it was about so
much more. That's why we had to look at the bigger picture
when making this decision. The MPAA and their cronies went
out of their way to choose a defendant (us) that the court
system would be prejudiced against. That's the one part of
the case they got right. But what they didn't count on was
the massive amount of support that came our way from all
kinds of communities - support that continues to this day.
In a way, the MPAA has brought a lot of us together. And
that has made us stronger as a group. 

While it's tempting to think of this as a defeat, we must
look at the good that has come out of it. People the world
over know all about the DMCA and are committed to
overturning it. The amount of education that has occurred in
the last two and a half years is simply phenomenal. There
are many other combatants now in the fight and we have never
been more convinced that we will ultimately prevail. 

The war has not ended. Only the frontlines have changed. We
are convinced that when all is said and done, this will be
seen as the best strategy. 


The Electronic Frontier Foundation has released the
following statement: 

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
announced today that online and print publisher 2600
Magazine will not seek U.S. Supreme Court review of a court
order prohibiting publishing or linking to the DeCSS
computer program. This decision ends the publication's
two-and-a-half year legal battle over DeCSS, which permits
DVD owners to use players that the entertainment industry
has not approved. 

"We took several steps forward with this case, forcing the
courts to recognize that freedom of speech was at stake,"
explained EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Later cases will
provide a better foundation for the Supreme Court to act on
the problems created by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA)." 

Kathleen Sullivan, the Dean of Stanford Law School, argued
the case on behalf of 2600 Magazine. 

In December 1999, eight major motion picture studios sued
2600 Magazine for publishing an article containing the DeCSS
computer software and linking to DeCSS. Norwegian teenager
Jon Johansen developed and published the software to great
public interest, especially in the Linux community. The New
York Times, the San Jose Mercury News, the Village Voice,
and several other mainstream news outlets reported on and
linked to DeCSS' publication in addition to 2600 Magazine's
coverage. 

Johansen created DeCSS in an effort to develop an open
source software player that would allow people to play their
lawfully purchased DVDs on computers running the Linux
operating system. But since people may also use the DeCSS
program as one step in infringing the copyrights of DVD
movies, both the New York District Court and the 2nd Circuit
Court of Appeals interpreted the DMCA as banning 2600
Magazine from publishing or linking to DeCSS. 

"This case served as a wake-up call to the Internet
community," said 2600 Magazine publisher Emmanuel Goldstein.
"We have a stronger, more united community now, and we will
support future cases." 

"EFF and 2600 Magazine will strive to ensure that the public
need not sacrifice its side of the copyright bargain to
Hollywood's fears of piracy," said EFF Intellectual Property
Attorney Robin Gross. Gross added that EFF is considering
other DMCA challenges and recently issued a three-year
report card detailing the law's faults. 

In a related victory for DeCSS proponents, a California
Court of Appeals held that the preliminary injunction
violated the First Amendment rights of Andrew Bunner, a
DeCSS republisher in California. The California DVD case is
currently pending before the California Supreme Court.