GameMX Wrote:Yet their was clearly a section that supported this. And apparently their was some notice given out before. They even had off-site links.Which is my entire point! If this goes unchecked by the power of law instead of checked like it should be, you can basically waive (lol u c wut i did dere) your rights goodbye.
It wasn't Nexon's doing to shut him down, his server provider did it for them because they didn't want to deal with it. And frankly, if you are a large server provider, it's better to pull it off up front, then deal with the situation.
This has a chilling effect on free speech. For more information on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(term)
Don't you think gaming corporations would love a scenario where they can legally stop any negative discussion about their products? It might not end like that with Nexon, but I guarantee some company down the line will pick up the slack. Censorship starts with unpopular speech (e.g. talking about hacking, very few want hacks).
If hosts drop you at the first sign of a DMCA, exactly what is the incentive to allow anything that could even be misconstrued as violating copyright? You know, like Windows Calculator. Images of how to use Windows Calculator. You really have to consider the full range of implications. Again, I implore you to look at: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/ to get an idea of what kinds of things are included in the scope of speech.
The host is wrong in this case, it makes me very angry. They should have at least challenged some of the articles and demanded proof of copyright for Cheat Engine and rejected all the "Terms of Service violating" threads. But the fact is that they didn't. That doesn't bring Nexon into the legal clear. Two wrongs do not compose a right.
Also linked from the DeCSS gallery, on the DeCSS Haiku site: http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/haiku.html
Quote:It's sad to see much of the self-identified "creative community" fail to support intellectual freedom here. Particularly galling is the short-sighted proprietary attitude toward the First Amendment expressed by some people in the culture industries, who suggested in Corley and many other contexts that the First Amendment smiles on the culture industries' expression and overlooks harm to other people's expression. They refer to themselves, but not their critics (and not Jon Johansen, not me, not any Gallery of CSS Descramblers contributor, not any programmer) as creative. We know free speech, the industries seem to say, because we practice it, and free speech is our speech, the First Amendment is our amendment. After all, how could artists possibly be censors?Sound familiar?
As Cindy Cohn says, we don't mind if the movie studios use the protection of the First Amendment, "we'd just like them to share".
Looking back at the Corley case, I am frustrated. I am frustrated not only that we lost, not only that the censorship continues, and not only that allies of the studio plaintiffs keep on trivializing programmers' speech rights. More than anything, I'm frustrated that public opinion mainly dismisses what happened as a matter of pursuing hackers. Public opinion says the hackers got what was coming to them, because they were hackers. The court of public opinion, with some exceptions, seems to be affirming the Second Circuit.