Recently I sent a note to Politech with my description of the oral
arguments before the appeals court:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-01986.html
Attached below is a reply from Chuck Sims of Proskauer Rose, the lead
attorney representing the Motion Picture Assocation of America in this
litigation. Chuck didn't want his email address included, and I've agreed
to remove it.
More on Proskauer Rose's filing yesterday, 2600's filing, and photographs:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02083.html
-Declan
---
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 19:08:39 -0400
From: "Charles Sims"
To: declan_at_well.com
Subject: Re: FC: U.S. government says DeCSS is terrorware
MIME-Version: 1.0
Declan:
Your comments on the arguments made by AUSA Dan Alter are unaccountably
snide and inaccurate. Alter's point, which is entirely correct, is that
the arguments lodged by Corley's attorneys in this matter are so
preposterously overbroad that they would require the invalidation of not
only the DMCA but also any federal statutes barring the public distribution
of harmful or unlawful devices or technologies via the Internet - whether
circumvention devices or gambling paraphernalia or software to steal cable
or satellite transmissions or computer viruses or "terrorware that could
crash airplanes, disrupt hospital equipment and imperil human lives."
Before he decamped to represent the Mitchell estate in its fight against a
first amendment/fair use claim, Martin Garbus argued - and so has his
successor and the various amici supporting Corley - that every piece of
software is speech protected by the most demanding first amendment tests
known to the law, no matter the purpose of the regulation or its character,
and therefore effectively immune from governmental regulation. Corley's
argument has been, if it's code, it's fully protected, and the fact that
the code may also be functional is irrelevant, That's the argument to
which Alter was reponding. As the Court noted, the argument is inaccurate
and absurd, and contradicted by a wide range of caselaw.
To tell your readers that Alter said that DeCSS was as dangerous as
"terrorware that could crash airplanes, disrupt hospital equipment and
imperil human lives" is just bad reporting. He didn't say it was the same
as terrorware; he said that Corley's argumment makes it legally the same,
and would prevent Congress from barring terrorware or any other unlawful
conduct or device so long as it was configured as software, and so the
Court should reject that argument.
Mischaracterizing the very strong arguments against Corley and shielding
your readers from the weakness of the arguments made in his defense doesn't
advance the debate; doesn't inform your readers of what's at stake;
deprives them of a point of view and analysis that might actually change
some minds, or provoke some thought; and misportrays the strength of the
position taken by creators and the creative community in the DVD
litigation. What is gained by failing to convey the weakness of the
arguments made by the DMCA's opponents?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on May 31 2001
Intro
