October 05, 2002

Twofer - reverse-engineering and legal-brief flaming

I'm still pondering various nastiness in legal briefs. I recalled a part of the DeCSS case where the plaintiffs even introduced Slashdot comments as evidence against the defendants. I went and looked-up that portion, and it even had invocation of prohibitions against reverse-engineering.

The following is from the John Hoy declaration in the DeCSS (president of the DVD DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. -"DVD CCA")

... To my knowledge, all of the software licensees of CSS technology, including Xing, require end users to enter a "click wrap" license which specifically prohibits reverse engineering.

8. Moreover, the Internet postings of those individuals who were developing and/or discussing the means to hack through the master keys to gain access to CSS technology, referred to in the Shapiro Reply Declaration, demonstrate that they knew, or had reason to know, that such actions were wrongful.

9. For example, postings on slashdot.org as early as July 1999 clearly establish the state of mind of the hacker community. The following is a sample of posts made on July 15, 1999:

(much Slashdot flaming follows)

Hmm - "the state of mind of the hacker community"? It's amazing what gets into these things.

By Seth Finkelstein | posted in legal | on October 05, 2002 11:57 PM (Infothought permalink)

Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog (Wikipedia, Google, censorware, and an inside view of net-politics) - Syndicate site (subscribe, RSS)

Subscribe with Bloglines      Subscribe in NewsGator Online  Google Reader or Homepage