Source: http://osiris.978.org/~brianr/crypto-research/css/20010530_ny_eff_supl_brief.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:26:11+00:00

Document:
issues that arose during the oral argument of this case on May 1, 2001.
A.  Questions in the May 8, 2001 Order.
Copyright Act content-neutral? See 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 328-29 (S.D.N.Y.
discussion of other kinds of machines.
to a member of the media requires scrutiny "of the highest order."
Amendment requirements emphasized in Bartnicki are squarely raised.
2. Does DeCSS have both speech and non-speech elements?
Brief of Abelson, et. al. at 13-17.
important to remember the limited function of this particular program.
systems on airplanes or shut down smoke detectors in public buildings."
e.g. Universal, 111 F.Supp.2d at 322.
be vigilant in their application of First Amendment standards.
of a handbill or a pamphlet, and as such, it is the kind of "speech"
content, or scientific analysis of the encryption programs used on DVDs.
infringement without running afoul of the First Amendment.
determines the appropriate First Amendment scrutiny.
order to deter copyright infringement by non-law-abiding third parties.
Magazine and is still widely available today.
considered in Brandenberg, National Association of Colored Persons v.
sufficient grounds to prevent or punish the speech.
1015 (citing Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 108 (1973) (per curiam)).
DVD movies will be infringed by third parties.
requires intentional wrongdoing, not mere recklessness, by the abettor.
Supply, Inc., 982 F.2d 173, 177-78 (6th Cir. 1992); United States v.
319 U.S. 703 (1943); United States v. Pinckney, 85 F.3d 4, 8 (2d Cir.
1996).  § 1201 does not require either element.
States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)?
lawless action and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action."
or likelihood of illegal action; mere illusion to "substantial risk"
scrutiny, of the use of DeCSS that has been enjoined?
alleviate these harms in a direct and material way." Turner I, 512 U.S.
The District Court's three criteria obviously fail these requirements.
practical means of preventing infringement than banning the publication.
itself.  And it does so even before any harm has occurred.
conform to First Amendment requirements?
the legislative framework, the statute must be struck on its face.
prohibition of posting on the defendant's website and of linking?
Appellants' Opening Brief at 14) as those published by 2600 Magazine.
facto evaluation of a publisher's motives is plain.
B.  Questions Raised at Oral Argument.
While Preserving Fair and Noninfringing Use.
Reply Brief at 17-19; ACLU amicus brief at 19-22.
way it protected the ephemeral recordings in the DMCA. 17 U.S.C.
e) Congress could have followed the model it used for analog VCRs.
"act of circumvention" by the content holder.  17 U.S.C. §1201(k)(5).
protection. In fact, Congress' approach turned that balance on its head.
speech to be protected by later legislation or caselaw.
thereafter copied by an unlimited number of others is simply wrong.
distributed: "never copy," "no more copy" and "one copy."
use and the public domain created by §1201.
2. Can Congress Eliminate Fair Use in New Media?
answers the First Amendment question here than in these other cases.
No one can force the Appellees to release their works in digital form.
banned in this new medium of expression.
Stanford Law Rev. 63 (May 2001 Draft) (forthcoming October, 2001).
only to the extent the Constitution allows.
Foundation                 Klein and Selz, P.C.
Please send any questions or comments to webmaster@eff.org.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 § 1201
 v. 
 §1201
 §1201