A federal judge ordered that the crack for DVD code be taken down off the web yesterday, despite arguments that computer code is protected by the first amendment. See the salon article here.
Regardless of the decision, with which I am sure many agree, how do you feel about the defendant’s analysis? Do you think code should be protected by the first amendment?
MR
I guess that makes me one of the few.
The first problem I see with the decision is that makes phase shifting impossible, something which was so far considered fair use. From the article:
The second issue, which relates to your question, is that computer code is precisely that: speech. Unambiguous speech, at that (incidentally, I speak unambiguously for a living.) Now, I am of the view that not all speech should be protected (death threats, etc.) But publishing computer code describing how to break encryption, is like publishing instructions detailing how to break a lock. This is, and should remain protected speech.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), makes illegal two things, among others: A) to circumvent encryption that protects the copyrighted contents residing on storage media like DVDs, and B to distribute computer code that can be used to do that. I have a problem with both these restrictions. I already explained why I believe B) should be legal. As for A), it’s trickier, and since don’t feel able to argue properly against it right now (as my gut feel tells me to,) I’ll leave it at that.
You can read a better articulated opinion here.
First of all, this widely reported “fact” is simply not true, and has been a major propaganda piece by the MPAA throughout the entire trial.
The code in question, DeCSS, aids in decrypting DVD movies for the purpose of playback on unsupported platforms. Encryption does not (and has never) prevented the act of copying.
Secondly, computer code must be protected as speech. As a programmer, not only is it a means of expression, it is the ONLY means of expression by which I can effectively communicate with my colleagues. If it is not protected as speech, my ability to communicate with my colleagues will be hampered.
Lambda’s analogy about lockpicking is correct. It may be illegal to pick a lock, but speech detailing how to do so is and should be protected (otherwise, how do you train a locksmith?)
The DeCSS code provides
a) An example of the weakness of the DeCSS algorithm, which can be used to teach computer scientists how to properly design encryption systems
b) A method for accessing media (that one already owns) which has never been illegal, at least not before the DMCA (which screams unconstitutional, I heartily await the supreme court cases.)
c) A communicatory value; the only way to effectively describe the process by which one cracks CSS encryption is with the source code to do so.
You can get the source code on my website here. And you can read a much earlier rant about it here.