Most of the other
DeCSS lawsuits were decided between 2001 and 2004, and even though the courts were persuaded that
DeCSS was a form of speech, they consistently ruled that it nonetheless violated the copyright protections of artistic material.
Goldstein allegedly or 2600 allegedly first posted
DeCSS?
The studios also face an ongoing legal problem in California, where the Court of Appeal recently ruled that
DeCSS is a form of speech and that banning it violates the First Amendment.
There isn't much hooray for Hollywood, though - the judge in the 2600.org case indicated he would likely rule the website's distribution of
DeCSS as "protected speech".
If you wish to obtain a copy of the
DeCSS source code, the DVD CCA thoughtfully provided it in the California case (cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm#Exhibit B).
Three weeks earlier, however, the California Court of Appeal ruled that
DeCSS is a form of speech entitled to full protection, and overturned an earlier injunction that banned a Web site from posting
DeCSS.
In their brief, however, the professors argue that, whatever else
DeCSS may be, the source code is a form of expressive speech.
To ban
DeCSS, therefore, the court would have to ban any discussion of what the program does, along with the source code, a proposition that raises serious First Amendment questions.
Last year Corley, operator of the 2600.com Web site, posted the
DeCSS code on his site and provided links to others.
As a result, any and all copies of
DeCSS must come down.
NEW YORK Lawyers for the defendant in the New York
DeCSS case may have found a way to quiet Jack Valenti: Put him under oath.
The latter part of the decision dealt with Corley's links to the
DeCSS code.