[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: mplayer

On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 01:24:09PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 30/03/2004 22:48 : wrote Walter Landry :
> >Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:
> >>at this point, I have to ask /why/ is CSS code banned? DMCA?
> >
> >
> >The legal status of CSS is still under active litigation.  Debian just
> >has to be conservative until it has resolved itself.
> I don't know. What is the *active* litigation basis? DMCA? It's an 
> honest question. I would like to know what is the *active* litigation 
> around DeCSS nowadays.

The California trade-secret (not DMCA) case, the DVD CCA vs Bunner,
Pavlovich, et al., evaporated in two gasps, one jurisdictional and one
on the merits.

The Federal case (so-called "MPAA v. 2600", actually captioned Universal
City Studios v. Reimerdes, IIRC) resulted in the original DeCSS code
being enjoined from distribution in the Federal 2nd Circuit of the
United States, which comprises the states of New York, Vermont, and
Connecticut[1].  The case was not appealed, and I don't think it's been
litigated in any of the other circuits.

I don't know that there is any *active* litigation regarding the
original DeCSS implementation, and it wouldn't be relevant anyway since,
as I understand it, that code has long since been tossed and replaced
with better algorithms.

The latest news I'm aware of is not good, though.


I'll note that we should probably stop using the confusing term "DeCSS"
to refer to any living software.  "Fair-access DVD playback software"
might be a better term, if a bit wordy.

[1] http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html

G. Branden Robinson                |       The key to being a Southern
Debian GNU/Linux                   |       Baptist: It ain't a sin if you
branden@debian.org                 |       don't get caught.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |       -- Anthony Davidson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: