Image talk:DeCSS.PNG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's the license for the code? — Matt Crypto 05:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The code itself is, I would think, PD-ineligible. Creative content is required to be copyrightable. It could, I suppose, be pattented, but the specifics in this case prevent that. edit by User:Quadell

Actually, this image is extremely problematic. The code is not, as this comment says, at all PD-ineligible. There is potential creativity at several levels, including the actual code written by Johansen, even if the algorithm was obtained through reverse-engineering. At best this would be fair use. More problematic is the fact that ANY implementation of DeCSS has been actually ruled illegal (and criminal to distribute or even possess) under the DMCA as a "circumvention device," by courts having jurisdiction in the United States. Notwithstanding the incompleteness of the code in the imagine, and its ubiquity on the internet, this is one of the most clear-cut cases of illegality on Wikipedia. I do not believe it is the place to impose civil disobedience upon Wikipedia, and I think this image should be removed. Some sort of symbolic image could be substituted if an image is desired, as this code is both useless and meaningless to most users anyway. NTK 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One question is, what is the copyright status of the image? The other is, is the image illegal to display for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright?

As for the second question, since none of the data variables are defined, the code is not useful. It couldn't be usefully construed as a "copyright circumvention device", so it's legal under the DMCA. I think we're pretty clear on this front.

As for the first question, that's more problematic. I made the image myself and release it under the GFDL, but it is (obviously) based on Johansen's code. So you have a point there. I'm not sure what the laws are in Norway about the copyrighting of computer code, but I guess we have to assume the DeCSS code is copyrighted.

On the other hand, however, I think a fair use claim would be reasonable. Only a small fragment of the code is shown, and is not useful on its own. Since this is being used only for educational purposes on a not-for-profit encyclopedia, and since its publication will not financially detract from the value of the code, I think it's a fair use of Johansen's code. Your thoughts? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

When did we start embedding code examples in images? In any case, a fair use claim would be fine.. providing we're actually discussing the code and not just wallpapering Wikipedia with it. --Gmaxwell 17:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Gmaxwell. It's used to illustrate DeCSS. I think I'll assert a {{Fairusein}} claim, unless there's significant objection. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not claim to understand the technical issues involved, but the fair use issue seems to be simple--this is a short quotation from a longer text, used to illustrate an article about the longer text. That's clearly covered by fair use; just like the quotation from a copyrighted poem at, say Derek Mahon. I'll say the same at WP:CP. Chick Bowen 19:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the code under the GPL, regardless of the court case? Doesn't the precedent of the DVD CCA vs. 2600 case only apply to the jurisdiction that that particular federal court covers? See United States district court. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my real issue was the DMCA provision, not the `fair use' etc provisions.

"As for the second question, since none of the data variables are defined, the code is not useful. It couldn't be usefully construed as a "copyright circumvention device", so it's legal under the DMCA. I think we're pretty clear on this front."

This is certainly a good argument. Basically, "it's only a piece of an illegal thing, not the illegal thing itself, so it's legal." The only way to know if it is "right" or not is to litigate it in court, and obviously it would never get to that point. The pragmatic question is whether there is a facial case such that the MPAA might have some basis to harass or cease-and-desist the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't see any big upside to having an actual piece of this code here. If we need it for legitimate scholarly or historical value, then we need the whole thing, not some fragment--which unquestionably would put us afoul with the case law. If we don't, then any symbolic splotch will do just as well as this particular splotch of the actual DeCSS code. NTK 23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the snippet is problematic, but if you're right, and the MPAA do cease-and-desist the Wikimedia Foundation, how about then we remove the image? — Matt Crypto 23:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I loathe the MPAA. . . but if they issued the Wikimedia foundation a cease-and-desist, I'd voluntarily take the photo down. But boy I'd be pissed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to make a huge issue out of this. As a matter of policy we shouldn't just put things up that we know are problematic and wait for the C&D's to come in. If this were to become established practice it could get WP in deeper trouble down the road with something more serious. In this particular case I think it's borderline de minimis. In any event if Wikimedia did get a C&D letter, I don't think you'd have much say in the matter--if the board had any sense and legal advice they'd have it taken down summarily. Given even the ghost of a good claim, the MPAA could litigate Wikimedia out of existence. NTK 06:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

When we don't know for certain that something's problematic, and some people think it's fine, then what do we do? In the absence of actual legal advice, I would suggest that the best course is to keep it and take it down only in the event of a C&D letter. We need to be sensible, but we also need to avoid copyright paranoia. This is not working code to do anything. — Matt Crypto 07:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that according to the EFF the DVD CCA is no longer pursuing cases involving DeCSS (as of 2004.)

I also feel it should be noted that if the image should be removed, so should all the external links to DeCSS code. The New York Unitied States District Court ruled in Universal et. al. v. Reimerdes et. al. that there is no substantial difference between providing material directly, or linking to another website for the same purpose, for the purposes of the DMCA's anti-trafficking provisions. Concerns over the legality of the external links should be resolved before any concerns over this particular image, except in regards to the copyright of the image. 2600.org was forced to remove even links to other sites providing DeCSS. I don't particularly see how the external links to the DeCSS on this page are different, especially in view of how this is one of the highest hits on a Google search for DeCSS. However, as I have already mentioned, the legal situation in the states has changed since Universal v. Reimerdes. --j0no 04:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point. I no longer think that this issue is worth WP editors' time, so I am withdrawing my objection on the copyright problems page. However for future purposes I would still recommend avoiding gratuitous insertion of potentially legally problematic material. NTK 07:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSStab1 ... CSStab5

I don't see where these variables are declared / defined...

--Elias

This is only a snippet of the whole code. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Even you're only displaying a snippet, you're toeing the line of illegality under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2). Particularly as interpreted by the Court of Appeals in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2nd Cir. 2001), on this exact issue with the 2600 Enterprises web page owner, Eric C. Corley. This case can be found in its entirety at: http://digital-law-online.info/cases/60PQ2D1953.htm