On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 04:58:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:14:22AM +0100, Siggi Langauf wrote:
> > The code is GPLed, so there are no licensing issues.
> > The legal status of css decryption code is unclear.
>
> It's probably risky to distribute or use it in the US (since it's a
> circumvention device, which is prohibited under the DMCA, and that
> interpretation's been confirmed by a judge; although that's presently
> under appeal). AIUI, though, there's no legal issues with it in the
> Netherlands, so there's no issues uploading it to non-US/main.
It really isn't neccessary to keep this out of main. There are two
reasons why the SDNY decision doesn't apply here (aside from it being
blatantly wrong).
1) The decision only applies to those people who were parties to the
suit. Those are Remirendes, Kazan, and Corley. And I don't think any
of them are FTP masters.
2) The decision focused narrowly on the details of the specific
program in question. For example, the fact that it was a windows
program featured in the decision. Again, we are not distributing that
which was enjoined.
The point of the MPAA prosecution was to scare people into taking
these programs down. Why should we do what they want, without
incentive?
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
Attachment:
pgpPDsY7PBSqo.pgp
Description: PGP signature