From maroberts@dial.pipex.com Thu, 03 Feb 2000 19:39:41 +0000
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 19:39:41 +0000
From: Mark Roberts maroberts@dial.pipex.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] CSS decision posted...

Judge Kaplan posted his reasoning behind his injunction on DeCSS.

Find it here:
http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-3-mo.htm

I'm not a lawyer, but looking at the reasoning seems to offer some hope
that subsequent appeals may be successful, especially as far as Linux
goes....

"They contend that DeCSS is necessary to achieve interoperability
between computers running on the Linux system and DVDs and that this
exception
therefore is satisfied.20 This contention fails for three reasons. 

____________________ 

    20 Def. Mem. at 8-9.

First, defendants have offered no evidence to support this assertion. 

Second, even assuming that DeCSS runs under Linux, it concededly runs
under Windows---a far more widely used operating system---as well. It
therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed "for the
sole purpose'' of achieving interoperability between Linux and DVDs. 

Finally, and most important, the legislative history makes it abundantly
clear that Section 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of copyrighted
computer programs only and does not authorize circumvention of
technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works,
such as movies.21 In
consequence, the reverse engineering exception does not apply."

As far as I can see this point could successfully be defeated if
a) one shows DeCSS running under Linux
b) one shows current work in progress to playback of DVDs under Linux
c) as far as the act goes, one does not have to show the sole purpose,
just the primary purpose, and demonstrating that CSS operation under
Wine is a necessary first step until the kernel supported DVD ioctl
calls would defeat this.
d) CSS as implemented in Xing _is_ a computer program and not a
technolocal system; on this point alone we are home free as far as I can
see.

Regards
Mark Roberts