CA Supreme Court Saves LiViD, Pavlovich 251
joebeone writes "The California Supreme Court has suprisingly ruled that Matthew Pavlovich is not within their jurisdiction in the DVD-CCA's suit against his posting of DeCSS in relation to the development of the LiViD DVD player for open operating systems. What's surprising? It's surprising that they held that his posting of DeCSS was not actionable... (however the use of the program by users to circumvent CSS could be under the DMCA)."
This is excellent news (Score:3, Insightful)
This is another important step on the long road to overturning the DMCA.
Indeed (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:This is excellent news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is excellent news (Score:2)
So beware. The next time yop turn back your odometer you could be charged in Detroit. Next time you change the expiration date on milk/cheese you could be tried in Wisconsin. BEWARE IDIOT JUDGES!
Re:This is excellent news (Score:4, Insightful)
> > This is another important step on the long road to overturning the DMCA.
> No... no, actually it's nothing of the sort. As the majority's concluding words said, Pavlovich may still have to face the music, just not in California.
This has a significant impact on the logistics of DMCA suits. It means that these plaintiffs in similar actions will have to determine the appropriate jurisdiction for for their suits and will not always have the home court advantages (mostly of pushing up the costs of defendants who have to travel from other jurisdictions). While not a major victory over DMCA, this is a definite victory in constraining DMCA's implementation.
I don't know how widely this ruling will apply. IANAL, but my understanding is that this would only definitely apply within that specific jurisdiction, but that other jurisdictions would be very likely to accept the same argument when it is presented to them.
What about Canada here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can I play DVDs under Linux in Canada with LiViD legally?
On another topic that other law that was mentioned here last week I think it was, would help the use of the program in the US i think
Re:What about Canada here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about Canada here? (Score:5, Interesting)
I like to think about what an ant colony would be like if one ant out of the millions was 'persecuted' by someone with a magnifying glass and as a result the rest of the ants avoided leaving the nest. What good could they accomplish if they were so easily deterred?
In reality, ants accomplish amazing feats just by sheer number, tenacity, and to a lesser extent strength.
Yes, friends, humans should be more like ants.
Re:What about Canada here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about Canada here? (Score:2)
The fine could be a good topic to make a tshirt, a personal one with a stamped version of the very same fine and a quotes like:
* AND I DON'T CARE!
* I'll KEEP DOING IT
* PAID $500, SAVED THOUTHANDS!
* (add your own)
Re:What about Canada here? (Score:5, Insightful)
You always have to weight the consequences with how strongly you feel.
What if kissing was illegal? Or dancing? You know in your heart it's not wrong to do either of those things. Would you risk kissing or dancing because you felt it was your right; because you wanted to make a statement?
WHAT?! (Score:4, Funny)
You do realize this is
Re:What about Canada here? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What about Canada here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but don't forget what the penalties are on the DMCA, up fo $500,000 and 5 years in jail, or $1 Million and 10 years in jail if you get hit a second time.
You're almost better off killing someone in protest.
-
Civil Disobedience (Score:5, Insightful)
Even more than that. Civil disobedience means that you explicitly break a law that you consider wrong, and do so in public or with a maximum of publicity and turn yourself in. The point is you want everyone to know that you broke the law because you consider it wrong, because you want it changed. This means you are ready to accept any actions (prison, etc.) on the authorities part.
Read some books about Gandhi [amazon.com] to understand how the principle works.
Re:What about Canada here? (Score:2)
Weren't the ants that could carry ten times their weights? Looks like a sine qua non feature to me
If you aren't using it to steal movies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Two things:
First, there is no such thing as stealing a movie. It's information and its properties are governed by information physics, not classical physics. You can steal the DVD from a store, but all you're doing is stealing a piece of metal and plastic that carries a representation of the data that, when decoded, gives an approximation of the movie. (Remember mpeg2 is lossy.)
Second, if you're not using LiViD (or any other computer software for that matter) in a way that costs or could potentially cost the (RI|MP)AA money, they really don't care. Remember that when they buy congress or the president they do it so they'll make more money down the line. When they sue Joe Average because he's downloading movies online, it's not because he's costing them a large enough sum that it really matters. It's because they expect that if the case gets big publicity other downloaders will be scared away from filesharing programs. If nobody stopped downloading and sharing when the ??AA sued someone, it would cease to be worth their time and they would stop doing it -- but that's another matter.
The bottom line is, as long as you're only playing DVDs that you've bought legally (not ripping or sharing them), the ??AA doesn't care. Sure, they might be upset that you're using a free operating system or free software because people exposed to that community just might gain enough knowledge about how information works to figure out that their business model is outdated and needs to be changed, but I have no idea if they're even thinking on that level. To them, their business model is the right one, and people are costing them money by obtaining copies of movies online.
Re:If you aren't using it to steal movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling copyright violations theft _is_ a wordgame. Illegally copying a movie or music is not theft. It is a copyright violation. A copyright violation is a violation of an exclusive right of a state granted temporary monopoly. It is not depriving someone of their property.
The ??AA's want you to think it's theft. They want you to think it's their real property. They want these terms for two things; to scare people away from illegally copying of copyrighted materials and (which is far worse) to indoctrinate the public and new generations into believing that IP is real property on equal footing with physical property. Because if people think it's real physical property then it's much easier to garner support against any proposals to reduce the length of copyright. After all, it's easier to argue against a government seizing their property than to argue against the government reducing their monopoly.
Dont call it theft. Dont call it property. Copyright violations are copy right violations, not theft.
(I certainly agree that there is no moral highground in copy right violations either, but there is a moral highground in arguing for the reduction of state granted monopoly time as opposed to arguing for seizing property after a certain time.)
Re:If you aren't using it to steal movies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it is a wordgame. Yes, it is more technically copyright violation. But yes, it is also theft.
Re:If you aren't using it to steal movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you copy, you _may_ be denying them income attributed to their government granted temporary monopoly, if you had planned on purchasing that item rather than copying it. Since the very income they are counting on from _you_ depends entirely on _your_ intent, it becomes an impossible construct. They are not prevented from selling it to someone else just because you committed a copyright violation (they may be if you mass-distribute it, which is why, while still not theft, that is even more frowned upon in law tho).
It is technically a copyright violation. A copyright violation and nothing else. Not theft, not murder, not piracy, nor arson. It may have factors in common with any and all of them, but it is _not_ any of them.
It is a violation of a government granted exclusive monopoly, granted for a limited time to promote creativity, it is not depriving someone of property, not even property they would otherwise have obtained.
A violation is a copyright violation, period.
Re:If you aren't using it to steal movies... (Score:3, Insightful)
The market does work that way. If I own something, I am entitled to set a price for it, and therefore my level of profit. Whether or not anyone actually buys it is immaterial to this section of the process. If I want a profit of one dollar per item, I may set that price; I may also demand a profit of one million dollars per item. Will you buy it? Will he? Will she? It depends on what value the buyer associates with the product. Generally speaking, if I am the only source of a given product, and it's not critical to someone's survival (food, water, medicine, etc), my pricing decisions are completely legal.
Re:If you aren't using it to steal movies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibly they have lost the potential to sell. It's just as possible that they may gain a sale if someone has seen or heard something from a P2P system. Or if someone can play DVDs on their Linux box.
Should negative reviews be banned, because they might lose someone the "potential to sell". This kind of claim is not unlike someone claiming they have the "right" to sales or to make a profit...
Re:What about Canada here? (Score:2)
And oddly enough Canadian politics is starting to suck more, too. Doesn't anyone correlate these statistics anymore?
Not Actionable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not Actionable? (Score:5, Informative)
Par for the course for Slashdot reporting, I guess.
Re:Not Actionable? (Score:4, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with the DMCA. That's a federal law, so it doesn't apply here. If you want to chase somebody using the DMCA, you file a case in federal court. California state courts are the wrong jurisdiction altogether.
This is nothing but a lawyer's mistake, not a sign that courts are striking down the DMCA. Don't
Microsoft has a Monopoly because of such rulings (Score:5, Insightful)
So how are we to play DVDs in our *nix Operating systems? We're not, we're suppose to buy Windows, and shell out extra money for a DVD player. This makes a purchase of a DVD drive useless for an open source based PC.
Re:Microsoft has a Monopoly because of such ruling (Score:5, Interesting)
In theory, someone could pay the $10K and release a closed-source plug-in for Ogle/MPlayer/Xine. However, I'm not sure if there are per-unit fees associated. There probably are and I don't think the consortium makes allowances for free software.
Re:Microsoft has a Monopoly because of such ruling (Score:5, Informative)
Personally, I think RedHat, Lindows & the others should do this for the people who just want to play their movies without getting into religious debates over licenses.
Hell, $10,000 isn't lunch money if spread between SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat, UnitedLinux, IBM, etc.
-Charles
Re:Microsoft has a Monopoly because of such ruling (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft has a Monopoly because of such ruling (Score:3, Interesting)
You, as a user, wouldn't pay an additional fee. There are no royalties with DVD formats, only what is on them.
Hmmm... I need to send a letter to SuSE, Sun and RedHat. They seem to want to push into the desktop market and this is a big sticking point.
Re:Microsoft has a Monopoly because of such ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft has a Monopoly because of such ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
In order to get the books with the specs, you must sign and NDA that you aren't going to share the info in the books.
They explicitly state that there are no per-unit royalties and once the NDA & book fees are paid, there is no more money to pay in.
The main focus is on hardware manufacturers -- they don't give a damn about copying software as they only make money from the NDA/License agreement.
So YES you could redistribute the BINARY code, just not the source. Source would violate the NDA. NVidia has already proved there is a Linux market for binary-only drivers. That is all this would be -- a binary plugin.
However, no one but the original licensee could use the official DVD logos -- that is part of the agreement. If you don't use the logos (and there is a FAQ question on that, but it deals with hardware), then all is cool.
Damn it! I need to hit a small lottery payout. I'd buy the darn license and pay whoever could write such a plugin a fee and release it as a freely redistributable binary. $10K isn't a lot to a company, but I don't have that laying around.
Re:Microsoft has a Monopoly because of such ruling (Score:4, Informative)
Many companies have invested in linux DVD player software development, but few have released publicly or have wide use bases. None are free as there are per unit royalities associated with ac-3 and mpeg-2 decoding (Dolby and MPEGLA collecting, respectively).
So it isn't as simple as RedHat and others dropping some money in a bucket. Companies are afraid of their software getting hacked, losing their shirts due to piracy of the non-free software, running into myriad problems with driver and hardware support which they tolerate in Windows (because of the market and OEM demand), having to deal with frequent kernel version changes (thus potential kernel module issues), and in also having to support their product on a historically "difficult" to use and administer OS.
Re:Legally? (Score:2)
Second, see the ruling... the ruling SUPPORTS the ability to create/distribute such software.
Re:Legally? (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is I paid for a DVD drive. I also paid to watch a movie unlimited times (hence the purchase of a DVD movie on a disc). However I am restricted at watching the movie legally, because I use an open source Operating System. With copy protection, we are slowly losing our rights as a group of consumers, for the interests of the movie industry that claims they have lost money. But their estimated profits for the year are just that, estimates. Piracy has been a blamed since the invention of video tape (in terms of video) for the industry not achieving these estimated figures.
Re:Legally? (Score:2)
DVD CCA stood in the wrong line. They got California, they need to go see Indiana or Texas.
CSS plug-in (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:CSS plug-in (Score:2)
Re:CSS plug-in (Score:2)
As a separate issue, it isn't clear that a player program using "unauthorized" decryption is illegal if it doesn't actually expose the cleartext. The act of viewing the movie is not what is illegal, but rather the act of converting it into a form where the decrypted work can be captured is what creates the problem. DeCSS, as far as the DMCA goes, did expose the cleartext, so the fact that it has been ruled illegal does not answer the question.
Letters to Congress (Score:2, Interesting)
1.) Read this [slashdot.org].
2.) Change the name from me to you, my senator to yours.
3.) Mail it in
4.) ??? 5.) Profit.
Real Link is Here (Score:4, Informative)
Here it is [pyrorobotics.com]
Its an Open Office Export, Nice Troll. (Score:3, Informative)
DeCSS is Dead (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, maybe we should keep it quiet.
Re:DeCSS is Dead (Score:2)
Re:DeCSS is Dead (Score:4, Insightful)
The decision today isn't even on the merits of DeCSS with respect to trade secret law. It is just a matter of who gets to decide. If you post something on the net in Texas/Indiana that allegedly causes damage to a trade secret in California, can you be taken to court there. The Court said "yes, but only if you target the damage toward California, and knowledge of the general industry that might be affected is not sufficient to meet this criteria".
So Pavlovich can defend his action in the 5th Circuit where the DVD-CCA can suck on Vault v Quaid which says even if state law prohibited reverse engineering, reverse engineering is legal because Federal copyight law preempts state law.
Ogle rocks! (Score:2)
I really like ogle! Command line or gui! Suh-weet!
http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/groups/dvd/ [chalmers.se]
Or check out #ogle on irc.openprojects.net. They seem like really nice guys. I once mentioned to them it would be nice to be able to pass a command line option for full screen so I could make it stupid-easy for my wife and daughter to watch DVDs (you know... pushin 'f' is hard). They were very cool and said they'd add support in for that (CVS). I'm not sure if they've done it yet (I haven't checked), but their attitude towards my suggestion was very positive. Other projects are not nearly as cool about that (i.e. a player that starts with m).
It's a good app. It has no problems playing any of my DVDs (region 1 or 2). Cool.
but Ogle and FusionSoft DVD lives on? (Score:5, Informative)
For Windows, there's the full-featured FusionsSoft DVD Player which is described as published under the GPL license, but where is the source? The indicated home page [chez.com] of the project is constantly over its monthly bandwidth quota. The last version available seems to be from July, 2002, version 5.0.0.1.
The binaries for FusionSoft DVD Player can be found here [pctip.ch]. Gut again, since it's GPL, the sources should be somewhere. The program itself is multilingual, although you may have to do some german to download it and some french during the installation.
Re:DeCSS is Dead (Score:2)
Time to move servers (Score:3, Interesting)
so let me get this straight (Score:3, Interesting)
that doesn't sound like much of a leap forward.
Re:so let me get this straight (Score:2)
Moot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Once the code was published, Pandora's proverbial box was opened. They can never shove it out of view again.
Today, DeCSS based players abound aplenty. And there are rippers and other tools based around the code. Even if they win the case in court, they've lost in the court of real life.
Re:Moot? (Score:3, Insightful)
They want to scare the people who might crack the code, of course I think userfriendly explained it the best [userfriendly.org].
Re:Moot? Depends on the game. (Score:2)
More likely, they're trying to send a message to serve as an example and ward off future crack attempts. That, and $$. DeCSS was distributed freely ergo they're not collecting any licensing fees. From their point of view, someone has to pay.
Re:Moot? Depends on the game. (Score:2)
Court room transcript (Score:3, Funny)
Pavlovich: No, Your Honor, it cannot be. I don't think much of our profession, but, contrasted with respectability, it is comparatively honest. No, Your Honor, I shall live and die a Pirate King.
(SONG -- PIRATE KING)
Pavlovich: Oh, better far to live and die
Under the flightless bird I fly,
Than play a corporate raider's part
With a pirate head and a pirate heart.
Away to the cheating world go you,
Where pirates all are well-to-do;
But I'll be true to the song I sing,
And live and die a Pirate King.
For I am a Pirate King!
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King!
For I am a Pirate King!
SLASHDOTTERS:You are!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
Pavlovich:And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King.
SLASHDOTTERS:It is!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
(Inserted to avoid lameness filter.)
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
Pavlovich:When I sally forth to seek my prey
I help myself in a royal way.
I rip a few more flicks, it's true,
Than a well-bred hacker ought to do;
But many a hack with a first-class clone,
If he wants to call his warez his own,
Must manage somehow to get through
More lines of code than e'er I do,
For I am a Pirate King!
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King!
For I am a Pirate King!
SLASHDOTTERS:You are!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
Pavlovich:And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King.
SLASHDOTTERS:It is!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
(the lameness filter, to avoid, inserted.)
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
(exeunt.)
This is just barely a win -- a technicality (Score:5, Insightful)
The key to winning the case was that Pavlovich did not know that DVD CCA is based out of California (until after they sued him), and because he did not know this, certain legal tests fail, and he cannot be pursued as the suit was filed.
Yes, there were many other deep, legal issues, but thisone appears to be the main reason.
Maybe he learned something from Bill Gates, who did a fabulous job during this legal battles to convince the judge that he could not remember a single thing. What lessons are our higher courts teaching us?! I thought learning from the past was a good thing, but apparently forgetting the past is much safer.
Re:This is just barely a win -- a technicality (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you overemphasize the importance of this element of the decision. Him not knowing the DVDCCA was in California was simply the batting down of one of the lame arguments made by the DVDCCA.
The real thrust of the matter is that you have to "target" your activity towards a state in order to be sued there. Pavlovich didn't and his Indiana/Texas based activity wasn't governed by California law. That is not a technicality, it is a very important result that says that passive posting on the internet will not be governed by the least common denominator laws.
Keep in mind that this decision is not the main decision on the merits -- that will come down when the "Bunner" appeal is decided. Here Pavlovich specifically argued that he shouldn't be lumped in to the California lawsuit because it wasn't California's place to decide if what he did in TX/IN was illegal because he didn't have any relationship with California.
Re:This is just barely a win -- a technicality (Score:2)
Re:This is just barely a win -- a technicality (Score:2)
In a nutshell, Pavlovich didn't "target" his action at California. He didn't target DVD-CCA because he didn't know they were in CA when his site posted DeCSS. He didn't target the movie industry, because they were copyright, not trade secret owners and it has to be the tort in question that was targeted at CA. He didn't target CA business clients because he wasn't in business and his website was "passive" and was therefore not aimed in any particular direction.
Had any one of those elements gone the other way, this case would have been decided differently. This is a very groundbreaking case because it really finds the absolute boundary of long arm jurisdiction statutes with regard to the internet, and (thank god) it found it stopped just short of where it would have had to be to hobble the internet.
What's so surprising? (Score:4, Interesting)
it is not illegal to use DeCSS (Score:5, Funny)
Better watch out... (Score:5, Interesting)
There must be a point made, whether by press release or otherwise, that Open Source does not in anyway support the copyright infringement of any commercially available (or, for that matter, freely available) software. We need to make it clear that we are not advocates of breaking the law, as this judgement seems to suggest.
However, saying that "I am not guilty of copyright infridgement because I work for the open source community" is not a valid arguement. This is probably why it has been associated with piracy. Again, we must make the difference clear to everyone so they don't get the wrong impression.
On a similar note, since the Judges of the court obviously do not understand what Open Source is and labeled "us" as "rogue software pirates", is there any legal action we can take against the court in a defamation of character suit? It's obvious they have just degraded us and our cause without a viable reason.
libel -- no (Score:2)
Er, where did you read that?
The judges would invoke their absolute immunity. This may seem unsporting, but imagine what would happen to the judicial decision if every losing party could tie the judge up in a lawsuit. Also, judges should be fearless in writing their opinions. That said, "rogue software pirates" is not very professional and suggests prejudice. Too much of that sometimes gets judges recused from further proceedings to avoid any "appearance of impropriety."
There -- much more than you wanted to know.
Say what? (Score:3, Informative)
This case isn't about Open Source at all. All this ruling said is that CA was the wrong state to sue this defendant.
Sorry guys, this means little (Score:5, Informative)
Personal jurisdictional is a constitutional question of due process, and governs whether a court may requires or permit a party to be joined in a legal action. Whether a court has personal jurisdiction is usually gauged by the party's contacts with the state, such as residence, committing significant acts there, consent to jurisdiction, and so on. If the court does not have jurisidiction, the case will be dismissed (at least as to that party) without addressing the merits of the lawsuit.
That's what happened here. The court was quite explicit in its conclusion which questions it was or was not deciding. It is interesting speculation whether this decision is mistaken, and where the plaintiff might next sue, if at all, so as to be assured of personal jurisdiction. It is also possible that the plaintiff dropped the ball and could have persuaded the California court on jurisdiction had it adduced more facts regarding the defendant's actions.
A parting caveat -- I just gave the opinion a power read and could be clueless on something important. However, the nature of the court's discussion is extremely familiar, and doesn't have a thing to do with DeCSS.
Re:Sorry guys, this means little (Score:2)
Minor correction (Score:4, Informative)
Wall Street and the DMCA (Score:2, Insightful)
Throughout the paper, Samuelson assumes that the "New Economy" will be stifled by the "unpredictable, overbroad, inconsistent, and complex" anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. Clearly, Samuelson is trying to appeal to the economic interests of her to combat the restrictive nature of the DMCA. It can be seen, then, that in "Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy" Samuelson is positing a conflict between the interests of the "New Economy" and those of the "Old Economy", i.e., the media interests backing the DMCA
The problem with this approach is (of course) that the so-called "New Economy" is widely precieved at present to have been something of a bust, thanks mostly to the feeble state of the stock market, in particular the 60 per cent plus decline in the NASDAQ. Therefore, the "Old Economy" has a leg up in Samuelson's conflict of economic interests, which does not bode well for future instances of anti-copyright legislation.
Mr, Pavlovich has gotten off, as it were, on a technicality. Given the provisions of the DCMA, however, had he been a California resident, his fate may have been grim indeed, and given the advantages presently enjoyed by the "Old Economy" pro-copyright forces, it appears we will all have to deal with the DCMA for some time to come.
Re:Wall Street and the DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
The DVDCCA took a winning case to a wrong court and lost. However, it doesn't prevent them from learning from this mistake and trying again.
seems good, but narrow (Score:3, Interesting)
While I am all for this decision, it seems the major benefit is that it places additional legal hurdles before DVD CCA. They have to sue each non-Californian web site individually, in the state where that site resides. My guess is that the biggest hassle here as far as the DVD CCA is concerned is that each state has different laws, and the plaintiffs would have to show that posting the material was illegal in the state where the web site resides. That not only shoots the legal costs up sharply, but then you also risk having web site operators in states where posting such material is entirely legal and protected. (Never mind federal laws such as the DMCA that might also apply to a case like this.)
Of course, maybe the DVD CCA could sue from another state that has more "liberal" policies on what is within its jurisdiction.
The decision does NOT seem to make any statements about the legality of reverse-engineering CSS, or writing code to implement the DeCSS algorithm, or distributing that code. The court did not find that distributing DeCSS was legal, but rather that under these specific circumstances, Californian courts are not the ones to decide this. Not that I would have expected a more sweeping opinion given the specific focus of the question before the court.
Bottom line: This is a roadblock for DVD CCA and organizations that are similarly evil, but it is far from a conclusive win or even a sweeping victory -- at least that's how it looks from here. Any people with more legal expertise care to add to or correct these thoughts?
very close decision --- too close for comfort (Score:2, Funny)
The decision came down to the vote of a single justice who chose the "right" side.
I'll let you draw your own comparisons to the US Supreme Court decision on the Bush vs Gore election of 2000.
Reverse Engineering is illegal!?.... (Score:3, Interesting)
(f ) Reverse Engineering.--(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that the case should be thrown out.
Re:Reverse Engineering is illegal!?.... (Score:2)
`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
Further:
`(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
Interoperatibity being defined as:
`(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
Being that Linux software players need to exchange the necessary information to decrypt CSS in order to interoperate with Linux drivers before a DVD can be played, why is DeCSS illegal in the first place?
Re:Reverse Engineering is illegal!?.... (Score:2)
Plaintiffs (read "MPAA") point out that DeCSS gives you the ability to make perfect copies of DVDs. Therefore (they argue), DeCSS is not distributed "solely for the purpose of enabling..."
Re:Reverse Engineering is illegal!?.... (Score:2)
Re:Reverse Engineering is illegal!?.... (Score:2)
This means you have the right to re-invent the wheel.
" that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title."
This means you can't share your work. All your friends have to re-invent the wheel on their own.
Article Summary is WRONG! DMCA date invalid! (Score:5, Informative)
DMCA does not cover software or hardware created BEFORE the begginning of 2000.
This is a fact.
DMCA will NEVER have any bearing on the original frozen sources of Nov 1999 Livid and livid is now "clean" of any tainting from the XING key anyways.
Current versions use brute force key cracking,a s do other DVD ripping source examples.
DMCA start date was a few months too late.
Too badfor DMCA but its a fact, the origianl aguments were NEVER about DMCA they were about theft of XING key using a debugger violating the click-wrap license.
Re:Article Summary is WRONG! DMCA date invalid! (Score:3, Interesting)
RTFL. You can write it (maybe), but you can't distribute it. It doesn't matter if the program was written in in the Nineteenth Century: If it's available for download today, the host is in violation of the DMCA.
neat quote from dissent (Score:5, Interesting)
The record indicates that, by intentionally posting an unlicensed decryption code for the Content Scrambling System (CSS) on their Internet Web sites, defendant and his network of ``open source'' associates sought to undermine and defeat the very purposes of the licensed CSS encrytion technology
Wow! Makes free software sound like the mafia. (Those are his quotes around open source, btw.)
I think we (open source) have a major PR problem with the judiciary to address.
-- p
Re:neat quote from dissent (Score:2)
Bottom line: Don't go into court expecting "but it was for an Open Source project!" to get you off the hook for anything.
Re:neat quote from dissent (Score:2)
Open Source giveths, not takeths away B-)...authors who release code under the GPL does not waive any of their original rights, they just give more rights to the users of their works.
Re:neat quote from dissent (Score:2)
Re:neat quote from dissent (Score:2)
If by 'PR', you mean we don't pay them as much as the opposition, then yes, you are correct.
Support RedHat. I may not think their stuff is all that great, but it is important that we have a well-funded ally, and RedHat has the best record without a doubt.
(It's a shame I should have to say this, but no, I don't work for them. In fact, I'm a 'BSD'er.)
Technically Correct Verdict (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, as mentioned before me, this simply dismisses the case due to lack of personal jurisidction. It does not prevent the Plaintiff from trying again in TX. And worst of all, it doesn't prevent a huge company like the RIAA from suing in TX.
Re:Technically Correct Verdict (Score:2, Interesting)
Decoding the legal fine points (Score:5, Informative)
The lower courts in California agreed. However, the quality of jurisprudence is fortunately a little higher in the California Supreme Court. They kicked it back. Now DVD-CCA will have to start over in another state (probably Texas, or potentially Illinois - where Pavlovich may have done some of the LiViD work while in school).
The case is far from over, in fact, it's just getting started, and it's anybody's guess what will come of it. One hopes one of these will find its way to the USSC while there's still a few shreds of dignity left at that bench; in which case, the DMCA would get the treatment it deserves. But it would depend on many things...
Specifically, with respect to the jurisdiction (which is an interesting, if academic, question), the California supremes held:
The exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with these Constitutions "if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate ' "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."
They go on to indicate their position:
According to DVD CCA, California should exercise jurisdiction over Pavlovich because he should have known that third parties may use the misappropriated code to illegally copy movies on DVD's and that licensees of the misappropriated technology resided in California. In other words, DVD CCA is asking this court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant because he should have known that his conduct may harm--not a California plaintiff--but industries associated with that plaintiff. As a practical matter, such a ruling makes foreseeability of harm the sole basis for jurisdiction in contravention of controlling United States Supreme Court precedent. (See Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 474.)
Indeed, such a broad interpretation of the effects test would effectively eliminate the purposeful availment requirement in the intentional tort context for select plaintiffs.
[emphasis theirs]
Very simple, actually.
I expect the DVD-CCA's attorneys to get their law on ghetto-style; that means every nasty trick they can think of to rack up costs and price Pavlovich out of the fight. Home-court advantage has a nice synergy, too.
What I find interesting are the series of decisions supporting them which led up to this ruling. Perhaps one of the biggest weaknesses of the legal system is that there is no good way to handle bad judges once they get into the system.
This was really a very close call (Score:3, Informative)
The defendant, Pavlovich, had several things in his favor. The DVD CCA, which brought the suit, claiming that Pavlovich should have known that they would be harmed, didn't even exist when the DeCSS code went up on Pavlovich's web site. The MPAA claims that they sent a 'cease and desist' letter to Pavlovich, but can't find a record of that, so the judges ignored it. And, the CA Supreme court majority recognizes that the DVD CCA could very easily try the case in Texas, so it's no real loss to them to do so.
If any of those three conditions wouldn't have happened, this would likely have been tried in California. It was really really close.
thad
What They Didn't Say (Score:4, Insightful)
Remarkably, the judges never mentioned any of the following key facts that should have completely changed the nature of the (original) proceedings:
- The DeCSS was already posted on hundreds of
web sites all over the world long before it was
posted on the LiViD site. Posting it on the
LiViD site cannot reasonably be claimed to have
had any substantial effect on anybody, beyond
minor convenience for LiViD developers.
-
Nobody has shown that the CSS was illegally
reverse-engineered. It's specifically allowed
to reverse-engineer in Norway despite any
contractual agreement. In any case there was no
contractual agreement, just a click-wrap button
which there is no evidence anybody clicked.
Once a trade secret is out, it's out, and anybody
is free to use it. DVDCCA likes to pretend, and
seems to have confused the judges into believing,
that something illegal occurred in Norway. The
worst anybody has come up with is that nobody
knows (despite what Norwegian law says)
what a Norwegian court would actually decide.
-
These judges insist that LiViD was "aimed at"
the movie and electronic industries, despite that
it has been explained that it was,rather, aimed
at benefiting legitimate owners of DVDs, who
have a Uniform Commercial Code right to watch
the movie they have bought. That some movie or
electronics companies might have been affected
was of no interest to the LiViD project.
-
Nobody has shown that these companies have been
affected in any way. Certainly lots of movies
are being released on DVDs, and lots of DVD
players are being sold.
I don't know whether to chalk up these omissions by the judges to malfeasance or incompetence. (Might as well assume both.:-)Play-by-play (Score:3, Insightful)
ahh, LiViD... DVD player, I think...
The California Supreme Court has suprisingly ruled that Matthew Pavlovich is not within their jurisdiction
sounds interesting
in the DVD-CCA's
boo, DVD-CCA
suit against his posting of DeCSS
whoot, DeCSS
in relation to the development of the LiViD DVD player for open operating systems.
Wait, does this mean...
What's surprising? It's surprising that they held that his posting of DeCSS was not actionable...
Yes, yes, I think it means...
(however the use of the program by users to circumvent CSS could be under the DMCA)
Fuck. Alright, nevermind. Back to whatever you kids do.
Don't celebrate yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Court went out of their way to note that it's only the DVDCCA that's being effected by the ruling; something that quite rightly should be done when the ruling is premised upon personal jurisdiction. In addition to saying that the DVDCCA probably can sue (just not in California), the opinion also says (although not quite as directly) that the movie studios probably could sue in California. And they could get not only Pavlovich, but pretty much anybody that posts DeCSS.
DVDCCA couldn't get jurisdiction because they couldn't prove that Pavlovich knew (or should have known) his actions might: 1.)hurt them, and 2.)hurt them in California. This is certainly right, as the DVDCCA didn't even exist as an entity when Pavlovich posted the code and they were never able to show that prior to the suit he had any idea where they were based. However, major movie studios in Hollywood did exist, and I doubt the Court would be willing to accept the notion that Pavlovich didn't know that Hollywood studios just happened to be located in Hollywood, CA. Had the plaintiff in the suit been a major studio (like Universal or Disney), you can bet the decision would have been the other way around.
Quick summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Case history:
- DVD CCA (Delaware corp w/HQ in CA) sues Matthew Pavlovich (individual in Iowa) for "misappropriating trade secrets" (DeCSS), and posting them on the LiVid website, seeking an injunction.
- MP files a motion contending CA has no jurisdiction.
- Appeals court overturns, and eventually gives a statement why the trial court should have jurisdiction.
- (This decision) CA Supreme Court decides the trial court doesn't have jurisdiction after all.
Summary of decision:- CA may exercise personal jurisdiction "if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate ' "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" ' ".
- The "minimum contacts" test must be administered on a case-by-case basis -- it's not mechanical.
- There are three tests by which a court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident:
- the defendant purposefully availed of forum (CA) benefits;
- the controversy is related to the defendant's contacts with the forum;
- the assertion of jurisdiction comports with "fair play and substantial justice"
- It's not enough to show defendant knew his actions would cause harm in CA. Plaintiff has to establish that CA bears the brunt of the harm. There are several pages showing they don't.
- Pavlovich posted on a "Web site accessable to any person with Internet access. Pavlovich never worked in CA. He owned no property in CA, maintained no bank accounts in CA, and had no telephone listings in CA. Neither MP nor his company solicited or transacted any business in CA. The record also contains no evidence of any LiVid contacts with CA." The site was links only, no interactive features. There's no evidence that anyone in CA even visited. One interesting argument: he couldn't have known he'd be harming plaintiffs in CA since the DVD CCA were formed two months after the links went up.
- DVD CCA claims CA has jurisdiction because "he should have known that third parties may use the misappropriated code to illegally copy movies on DVDs and that licensees of the misappropriated technology resided in CA". [emphasis orig] Accepting this argument would lead to a ruling "in contravention of controlling US Supreme Court precedent". It would give CA jurisdiction over far too many tort cases.
- Nevertheless, "DVD CCA has the ability and resources to pursue Pavlovich in another forum such as Indiana or Texas. Our decision today does not foreclose it from doing so. Pavlovich may still face the music -- just not in CA."
Justices Brown, Kennard, Werdegar, and Moreno voted to overturn, Justices Baxter, George, and Chin dissented.Re:He's still a criminal (Score:3, Insightful)
Civil Disobediance is rapidy becoming a moot point.
Re:He's still a criminal (Score:2)
Wrong story to post this, but we're all in the same boat. Kinda like the guy who goes on a cruise, and wakes up one morning to find a shackle on his ankle, and an oar poking in his window. Soon we'll all be defendants, guilty until proven guilty. Whee.
Re:He's still a criminal (Score:2, Interesting)
How's that for digression?
However, we do live in a pretty cool country (I'm assuming the U.S. here, though there are other nice places!) with lots of promise. It just takes a lot of minding so it doesn't get all run down.
Flamebait? (Score:2)
There is a natural reluctance to sympathize with criminal defendants we know nothing about; we want the state to be right about them, because the state protects us. I'm hardly immune to this. (A major exception is the Bronx, for which the "Bronx effect" was coined; the Bronx in known among lawyers for having a much higher acquittal rate than teh neighboring boroughs.
Before some idiot interprets that as a slur against the Bronx, please google "bronx effect."
Too bad I can't metamoderate my own stuff. I'd be honest, really.
Re:Why in california court? (Score:2)
This appears to be a small potatoes lawsuit. The plaintiff asked for an injunction and no money damages. Two theories: (1) the case likely did not meet the requirements for federal jurisdiction, which include like $75,000 in controversy or a federal statute that grants jurisdiction (I don't knoe how the DMCA is written on this point); or (2) state court is cheaper place to litigate, and this case was mostly symbolic anyway.
Re:Why in california court? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why in california court? (Score:2)
Almost wherever you are, there's a handy federal court nearby, though certainly the state sysetems are larger. I think i saw somewhere that tha CA state system has more judges than the entire federal judiciary. That's part of why federal court limits is jurisdiction to more "significant" cases, along with $5 Social Security disputes...
A third reason might also be that plaintiff's lawyers were more experienced in state court, and so chose that forum. Unfortunately, CA could not reach the defendant, so they will be sending their lawyers somewhere if they bother to pursue this harassment lawsuit at all.