MPAA V. 2600: Access To Information Is Not A Crime

josh fouts writes "What's the problem with the MPAA lawsuit against 2600? The problem is this: providing access to information is not a crime, and is in fact a cornerstone of American democracy. Ben Berkowitz has a column on onlinejournalism.com analyzing the significance of this lawsuit. "

we just want to watch the damn movies, not copy

[*DogShu*]

"A group of programmers looking for a way to play DVDs on Linux systems found that they could get around the CSS and copy movies directly to disk."

Noooo! We use it to WATCH the movies, not copy them!

Martin Garbus

[underwhelm]

2600.com has an entertaining record of legal minutae [2600.com] in the form of a transcript of their lawyer talking to the MPAA lawyer and the judge on a conference call.

Mr. Garbus seems pretty motivated by this case. The EFF has done 2600 and the 1st amendment a great service.

A good article, but...

[Jim Tyre]

...

It is a principle well established in this country that the press is free to publish what it likes, with small constraints for libel and issues of national security.

The very first sentence reveals a pet peeve of mine, one developed from having represented both individuals and the press in First Amendment cases for more than 20 years.

The First Amendment does not give any special protections to the press in this type of matter, the rights it guarantees are to individuals and the media alike.

Much later on, the article hints at this, but then reverts to the "freedom of the press" mantra.

OK. I've expressed my peeve, but it is a good article.