"If You Can Put It On A T-Shirt, It's Speech" Posted by Michael on Tuesday August 01, 2000 from the clear-as-mud dept. We got word last night that Copyleft has joined the ranks of the named defendants in the DeCSS suit - they received their subpoena yesterday, because they "distribute" the DeCSS source code - on t-shirts. Carnegie Mellon Professor David Touretzky testified before the court on this very issue. (See his Gallery of CSS Descramblers.) Here's Touretzky being questioned: Q. The next item, the DeCSS T-shirt, why did you post this on the website on the gallery? A. Well, this is a photograph of a T-shirt that's offered for sale by an outfit called CopyLeft, and I purchased one of those shirts myself. And the point of including it here is it seems to me that there is some confusion among all the parties in this case about whether something is speech or not. And my reaction is if you can put it on a T-shirt, it's speech. And so the point of showing the T-shirt was to illustrate that and, also, to raise the question if this T-shirt, itself, would have to be prohibited, then I wonder what would happen to me if I wore the shirt in public. Wearing the shirt in public could, perhaps, be interpreted as engaging in trafficking a circumvention device. So if one really wants to afford the plaintiffs the protection that they seek, I think I would only be able to wear my shirt in the privacy of my own home and must not go outdoors with it. Touretzky drew up a lengthy argument showing that if the DeCSS source code were banned, the only way to prevent that knowledge from being transmitted would be to ban it in all its forms - image file, various perturbations of the code into forms similar to plain English, annotated commentary, even on t-shirts and hidden in image files - all of these would have to be banned because the source code is easily retrievable from all of them. The Technical Term for this is "opening up a can of worms". Touretzky was trying to show the court that the issue was hardly open-and-shut - if you look at it one way, it's a device which can perform a task, but if you look at it another, it's speech that's expressive and communicative. If you're a programmer who's never taken much of a look at the legal issues surrounding computer programs, it may be patently obvious to you that code is speech, but to the judicial system, it is not so clear. The judge was apparently much impressed, and started seriously thinking about the free-speech implications of banning DeCSS, possibly for the first time in the case. He seemed to take Touretzky's argument to heart - either all would have to be banned, or none. Apparently the MPAA took Touretzky's argument to heart as well, and they're therefore doing what is necessary to remain consistent with their argument: going after the T-shirts. Maybe they'll go after the New York Times as well. Perhaps if the Times gets dragged into the case for posting an image of the illegal shirt, it might finally become clear to all and sundry that this case is about much more than copyright infringement. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: [CAFE-News] EFF DeCSS Trial Summary DVD Update: July 31, 2000 Universal City Studios et al v. 2600 Magazine EFF DeCSS Trial Summary: Facts in EFF's Favor as MPAA Claims Collapse Under Scrutiny EFF defense team established a solid record at trial that the major film studios are attempting to use the DMCA to ban DeCSS so it can monopolize the DVD player market. Despite its immense investigative resources and months of effort, the MPAA was forced to concede at trial that it could not find a single instance of piracy related to the software. The First Amendment rights of all citizens have been endangered because of the studios' panic and over reaction. Norwegian teenager Jon Johansen testified for the defense that he was working to build a DVD player for the Linux operating system when he posted the program to the LiVid list that he and two others authored. LiVid Project Leader Matthew Pavlovich testified that his development group used DeCSS to create a Linux DVD player that can compete with the studios' and DVD-CCA's current monopoly on DVD players. The studios were hoping to ban the software before a competing DVD player could be created that is not required by a CSS license to restrict features which allow people to exercise their legal rights. Journalist Emmanuel Goldstein, the editor of 2600 Magazine testified that he published the code in his reporting of Hollywood's crazed reaction to the software's existence, when the studios launched this legal attack against him. The high point of trial was the electrifying testimony of Professor David Touretzky of Carnegie Mellon University's Computer Science Department, EFF's final witness before resting its case. Touretzky explained to the court how computer programmers use computer code to communicate to one another with precision. He showed the court how an injunction against DeCSS chills his ability to express himself. Judge Lewis Kaplan stated Touretzky's testimony was "persuasive" and "educational" and would likely change his First Amendment analysis of the case. The judge did not indicate that he intends to rule in favor of defendants however, and EFF is prepared to take an immediate appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Trial briefs are due August 8 and a short turn-around is expected for a ruling. After the close of trial, DVD-CCA filed a motion to intervene in the NY litigation to fight EFF's challenge to unseal the Xing CSS license entered into evidence. DVD-CCA has requested to keep its CSS license out of the public record and Judge Kaplan will accept papers opposing DVD-CCA's intervention and secrecy request until August 2 at 5p.m. You can subscribe to EFF's mailing list to receive the regular DVD updates. To subscribe, email majordomo@eff.org and put this in the text: subscribe cafe-news EFF's archive of MPAA v 2600 litigation: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/