[KLUG Members] DeCSS case reversed!!! (Woooo Hoooooooo!)

[Peter Buxton]

On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 10:55:12PM -0500, Adam Williams was only 
   escaped alone to tell thee:

> > The California court said that California Trade Secret Law is not
> > applicable and cannot be used to grant an injuction barring the
> > distribution of DeCSS.

The point of Llaw the judges upheld is the idea of prior restraint of free
speech: which point is, the courts avoid it like the plague. They could
still uphold the legality of conviction under the DMCA CP-avoidance
clause(s), just not preliminary injunctions.

> True,  but the "free speech" issue makes the other points assailable. 
> If code isn't supported as a form of expression then the dominos start
> falling and all of Open Source is in peril.  If the free-speech-ness of
> code continues to stand it does punch holes through whatever-SSSCA-like
> bill eventually gets passed by congress.

Yes, it is good that code is considered speech. However, this simply raises
the bar on the RIAA/MPAA. Now, if I were them, I would simply install a
special connector to PC's and laptops and declare that installing a matching
socket to any recording device is against the law. This would be slower, but
far more effective and easier to defend.

-- 
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/somercet