Slashdot Mirror

It would be great to see this law used as a means of freedom, not oppression of 2600.

Ouch! It hurts!

Please, is this a joke ?
Say it isn't. Slashdot is a site for news and discussion about these news. There is no need for off-topic things. Slashdot readers are not crackers (look at http://www.2600.com instead). You can break code with DeCSS if you find it. Noone's going to help you with that.

The people who told you /. was a 31337 h4xOr w4r3z bunch were misinformed, or lies to you.

Now, say it was a joke. I reply to this because there are not many comment at this time (3, including two off-topic), so there aren't more interesting debate here for now.

"I spent a week just having them go through the red tape of contacting one company, having them issue a work order with another company, then having the second company issue a work order with the third company, making me three times removed from the problem."

Sounds like a story for www.verizonREALLYsucks.com.

feed story
the memorandum order (from 2600)

<//-------------//>
"I like /. but you can tell it was designed by programmers..."

Reading, "they are WORLDWIDE, NOT AMERICAN TLDs.", along with, "I'm sure that they are thinking - 'lets give the companies an alternative TLD to use'. Unfortunately, if I was an EU company, I would still register the .com, .net and .org TLDs anyway."

I am reminded of 2600s current battle with Verizon. In the May 2nd (I believe)issue of Off The Hook 2600 mentioned Verizon buying up all available TLDs, including misspellings of Verizon along with... get this, VerizonSucks.com. To outdo them, 2600 mentioned "Hey, why don't we register VerizonREALLYsucks.com, it doesn't appear they got that one yet". Apparently they did follow through and register it, within a few days they received a letter demanding the domain rights be handed over, and over-night mail be sent back to Verizon with the required information to transfer the domain.

(For those of you who don't know, Verizon is a recent merger involving Bell Atlantic and various other phone companies)

Needless to say, 2600 is now ensnared in about 5 court cases including this new one. I find it interesting that with SO many legitimate TLDs for a domain, Corporate rights are still maintained over every one. It appears a precedent setting case will be involved with this new threat by Verizon.

Somebody should register VerizonSucks.EU or .TV, I would like to know how American law holds out over in Europe or Tuvulu. 8-).

My point though is simply that we should really question what the validity of these TLDs really are. I mean, is a phone company really an Organization, a Commerce, a Network, a US, a CA, an EU.... all at the same time? If nobody follows the rules on these TLDs, and corporate America can do what they wish with any of them, why the hell have anything but .SO? (sellout). That's my pun.

If we're going to standardize naming conventions, I think we should require that Everybody follow them. Especially Corporate America, as it has the least right to be on the internet. The internet was certainly not built by "www.Flowers.Org (roses.com)", and it is certainly not alive because of them.

When I go to hotsex.org I expect an organization of dedicated non-profit sexual professionals. If I wanted to pay, I'd be at the COM site.

Get my drift?

Reading, "they are WORLDWIDE, NOT AMERICAN TLDs.", along with, "I'm sure that they are thinking - 'lets give the companies an alternative TLD to use'. Unfortunately, if I was an EU company, I would still register the .com, .net and .org TLDs anyway."

I am reminded of 2600s current battle with Verizon. In the May 2nd (I believe)issue of Off The Hook 2600 mentioned Verizon buying up all available TLDs, including misspellings of Verizon along with... get this, VerizonSucks.com. To outdo them, 2600 mentioned "Hey, why don't we register VerizonREALLYsucks.com, it doesn't appear they got that one yet". Apparently they did follow through and register it, within a few days they received a letter demanding the domain rights be handed over, and over-night mail be sent back to Verizon with the required information to transfer the domain.

(For those of you who don't know, Verizon is a recent merger involving Bell Atlantic and various other phone companies)

Needless to say, 2600 is now ensnared in about 5 court cases including this new one. I find it interesting that with SO many legitimate TLDs for a domain, Corporate rights are still maintained over every one. It appears a precedent setting case will be involved with this new threat by Verizon.

Somebody should register VerizonSucks.EU or .TV, I would like to know how American law holds out over in Europe or Tuvulu. 8-).

My point though is simply that we should really question what the validity of these TLDs really are. I mean, is a phone company really an Organization, a Commerce, a Network, a US, a CA, an EU.... all at the same time? If nobody follows the rules on these TLDs, and corporate America can do what they wish with any of them, why the hell have anything but .SO? (sellout). That's my pun.

If we're going to standardize naming conventions, I think we should require that Everybody follow them. Especially Corporate America, as it has the least right to be on the internet. The internet was certainly not built by "www.Flowers.Org (roses.com)", and it is certainly not alive because of them.

When I go to hotsex.org I expect an organization of dedicated non-profit sexual professionals. If I wanted to pay, I'd be at the COM site.

Get my drift?

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

Yes, Napster said that they would take action against users whom they were notified were copyright infringers. However, you should be aware that they took this position not because they think it's right to censor the Internet, but because they are required to do so by law.

Which law? That's right, our very favorite law: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Napster "asked" for a list of names just like your ISP is required by the DMCA to "ask" for the names of everyone hosting deCSS on their servers. They are exactly the same application of exactly the same law.

If you'd be thrilled with the MPAA asking the ISPs of everyone listed on 2600's catalog of deCSS mirrors to take down their sites and revoke their Internet access, then you have every right to revel in Metallica's plucky invasion of Napster users' privacy. If instead you'd think that it was a misguided and overzealous application of an unconstitutional law which is not in the public interest, then you should think the same think regardless of whether the illegal content is deCSS.c or enter_sandman.mp3.

04/28/00

In what we see as an important show of support from a major force in journalism, the New York Times has linked directly to our list of sites which currently house the DeCSS code.

The links have been a source of contention in recent weeks, as the MPAA and eight Hollywood film studios have sought to force us to remove them, claiming the links are the same as having the code published on our own site. We see it differently - while they may have been able to get a federal court to order the material off of our site, forbidding us from telling the world what other sites still have it would be a very ominous precedent to set.

The action by the Times comes in an article in today's electronic edition. What makes it particularly significant is this paragraph in which our attorney, Martin Garbus, is quoted:

"Take a hypothetical case, he said: If a major newspaper that operated an online news site wrote an article saying that somebody had broken the DVD encryption code, and it linked to a site that had the code on it, 'I think they'd have absolutely every right to do that.'"

At the bottom of the page, they do precisely that, linking not only to 2600, but to "2600's catalog of DeCSS mirror sites".

04/28/00

In what we see as an important show of support from a major force in journalism, the New York Times has linked directly to our list of sites which currently house the DeCSS code.

The links have been a source of contention in recent weeks, as the MPAA and eight Hollywood film studios have sought to force us to remove them, claiming the links are the same as having the code published on our own site. We see it differently - while they may have been able to get a federal court to order the material off of our site, forbidding us from telling the world what other sites still have it would be a very ominous precedent to set.

The action by the Times comes in an article in today's electronic edition. What makes it particularly significant is this paragraph in which our attorney, Martin Garbus, is quoted:

"Take a hypothetical case, he said: If a major newspaper that operated an online news site wrote an article saying that somebody had broken the DVD encryption code, and it linked to a site that had the code on it, 'I think they'd have absolutely every right to do that.'"

At the bottom of the page, they do precisely that, linking not only to 2600, but to "2600's catalog of DeCSS mirror sites".

In what we see as an important show of support from a major force in journalism, the New York Times has linked directly to our list of sites which currently house the DeCSS code.

The links have been a source of contention in recent weeks, as the MPAA and eight Hollywood film studios have sought to force us to remove them, claiming the links are the same as having the code published on our own site. We see it differently - while they may have been able to get a federal court to order the material off of our site, forbidding us from telling the world what other sites still have it would be a very ominous precedent to set.

Read the rest of their news item Here.

In what we see as an important show of support from a major force in journalism, the New York Times has linked directly to our list of sites which currently house the DeCSS code.

The links have been a source of contention in recent weeks, as the MPAA and eight Hollywood film studios have sought to force us to remove them, claiming the links are the same as having the code published on our own site. We see it differently - while they may have been able to get a federal court to order the material off of our site, forbidding us from telling the world what other sites still have it would be a very ominous precedent to set.

Read the rest of their news item Here.

Most hits rip other games' concepts. No, Nintendo didn't create the side scroller; Activision did in Pitfall for Atari 2600 (no connection with 2600). Alexey Pajitnov of Tetris® fame didn't create polyminoes; that was from the Romans. I think you might want to play some "infringing" games.

I'd appreiciate a response by anyone who knows more about the topic, as if definitely would be a neat means of communication.

But no comments about the latest MPAA action yet. 2600 News should have Emmanuel's comments on the latest action if he chooses to say anything.

Try the 2600.com flyer

How long was Kevin Mitnick in jail? How long will he remain on probation? You are already in the same category as rapists and murderers for suggesting this. http://www.2600.com/

The 2600.com list combined with DeCSS2,3,4 nails it to the net in a very special way,

Slashdot is a great place to rant about the issue, but believe me, everyone on slashdot knows about it and is fighting it in their own way. The best thing you can do is actively pursue this issue in your local community. Get the flyer from 2600. Tell your friends. I have been wearing my CCA shirt from copyleft and getting lot's of questions about the issue. The EFF is also helping us fight this, what we need to do is come out of our "caves" and tell the rest of the world about this issue (as all they know about it is the lies the news feeds them).


Munky_v2
"Warning: you are logged into reality as root..."

I've just finished reading the transcript of the application for an injunction against the distribution of DeCSS, and I've got to say the defence really looked fairly weak. The laws that the plantiffs are pursuing seem to be deliberately aimed at the sort of software that DeCSS is, and the way it was manufactured.

The incredible uprising against the supression of this information really had better be as a demonstration against the way they treated Jon and his father (and does anyone actually have even a second hand account of that ordeal?), because the legal situation looks very very cut and dried.

Despite what any linux zealots might like to think, the case is being made purely against the production of software that is "primarily designed for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls the access to a work"

In a purely legal sense, the judge very quickly, and I think justifiably, knocked back every single defence that was put forth, because none of them actually related to the case that had been presented.

We can all rave on forever about how this is an example of repression of a "small entity" (to quote the above article) by a "Big Business", but really, you can't abjure responsibility by attributing personalities to the opposing sides. Calling Big Business "BB" reduces those companies to a nameless, faceless force, thus making them emminently more suitable as a target for hatred, while simultaneously personalising the "small entity" by calling them "a son and his father" evokes sympathy.

If you actually stop for a millisecond and take note of these things, and think about reversing them, you might get a different image.

A father and his son today were finally forced to take legal action against a Big Business that had illegally bypassed the security measures on their product, known as 'DVD's. The father and son had developed their encryption to protect the content of these distributed DVDs in line with various US and international laws. Their livelihood is founded on the security of this data, and so they had to take steps to prevent it becoming publicly accessible.

As it became clear that this Big Business had deliberately circumvented their protection system, in order to use these DVDs on their internal platform of choice, as opposed to the platforms for which it was available, they took steps to prevent the circulation of the code which allowed this circumvention.

As information of this prevention attempt became available, the Big Business immediately took steps to widely distribute the code in an attempt thwart any restrictions the courts might impose. It has been speculated that the genie might never be put back in the bottle due to this deliberate action, which was frequently accompanied with rude or abusive comments: "Jon and his father are cock suckers!"

(Don't forget, Big Business is run by People too, it even employs some)

---

I mean give me a break. Any time we hear of big corporations trying to use loopholes in the law to escape from obvious infringements, we get all narky, but when it's some 'father and his son', it's suddenly a human rights issue.

Yes, I can see that the purchasing of that DVD should entitle you to view the information stored therein. However, I don't think that the fact there is no player for linux justifies the creation and distribution of source code that is obviously intended only to break DVD encryption.
All these script kiddies are just rabid about anything that might undermine some Big Business, so as soon as they see something like that, are they thinking "Oh good, now I can use linux to play my DVDs"? Hell no. They're thinking "SCREW YOU Big Business! I'm going to copy and distribute as many DVDs as I like now, hahahahaha!"

---

Having said all that, I still do think that there are some fairly serious issues here in regards to production of code, and whether it forms a part of 'speech' in terms of 'free', and whether it should be protected as such. I think that producing code is an expression of human ingenuity, an advance in the field of human endeavour, whatever that code might do, and however small that advance may be.

As it stands though, that code is illegal, it was produced illegally and it is intended for a purely illegal use. I for one won't defend it.

B.

As we've stated repeatedly, this is NOT about piracy of DVDs as the MPAA wishes the public to believe. It's about ACCESS CONTROL - in other words, the ability to play the DVDs that YOU'VE BOUGHT on the machine or platform of your choice. We challenge the MPAA to deny this.

Well said; 'nuff said.

• alt.2600 (www.2600.com) - hacked pages database. Lists sites hacked by the month from what we can presume to be non-secured.

Yeah, 2600 uses WBAI. Honestly, though, why should they have a copy of this program on 2600's site? This isn't their program -- it's apparently called Earthwatch. [I live in New York, so I can listen without RealPlayer. Now to see if anyone has anything interesting to say. Doubt it.] Oh, for the record, Emmanuel Goldstein, publisher of 2600 and host of the radio show, has been working on the DVD fight, not just Mitnick (though he did have a 45-minute interview w/ mitnick this week, so he didn't talk about DVD much).

Yeah, 2600 uses WBAI. Honestly, though, why should they have a copy of this program on 2600's site? This isn't their program -- it's apparently called Earthwatch. [I live in New York, so I can listen without RealPlayer. Now to see if anyone has anything interesting to say. Doubt it.] Oh, for the record, Emmanuel Goldstein, publisher of 2600 and host of the radio show, has been working on the DVD fight, not just Mitnick (though he did have a 45-minute interview w/ mitnick this week, so he didn't talk about DVD much).

Today, February 4 will also be a day of action planned against motion picture association. Protests are scheduled for today at movie theaters around the world, in over 100 cities. You can find more information here.

Go and tell people the truth about DeCSS! You can find flyers in multiple languages here.

There are a couple things I think that will probably find you guilty when tried.

This is a bit from the injunction against www.2600.com.
2600
9 THE COURT: An infringement of copyright, by
10 definition, is the violation of the copyright proprietors'
11 exclusive rights as conferred in the Copyright Act. That is
12 not what your clients are charged with, as I understand it.
13 So I don't see what the applicability of 512(c) to this is at
14 all. Now, if I'm mistaken, that's the reason I raised the
15 point; I'd like to hear about it.


This is the problem, the MPAA went and got laws passed that protected the whole dvd process when it is used to protect copy protected works.

IF they use this clause and your country is one of the 14 that also agreed this was a good thing, your screwed. In effect you broke the law.


THE COURT: The charge against your clients is 2 providing a device which is a means for circumventing an
3 access limiting factor. The infringement would be done by
4 someone else, although it might be done by your client, it
5 need not be. Nor is the infringement essential to the
6 violation of 1201. Is there some error in that, counsel?


If they go after you for this, they can go after linking to a site containing this also. Its already a law in the U.S. ITS NOT A FREEDOM OF SPEECH THING.
I think the 2600 guys are pretty muched hosed also. Change the law, or prove it unconstitutional, which looks a bit tougher.

I'm not entirely uncertain I disagree with this law in spirit, just because a movie maker spends 200million to make a move and millions more marketing and distributing it, doesn't mean you can rip it off.
And lets face it, everyone that uses is will be looking at ways to copy and trade them off.
Sorry, but I dont think I can back up what you did and probably side more in this case with the people protecting thier businesses. I'm not saying I like the idea that they will controll DVD players this way, but they planned well.
IF you dont like this law, get it changed.
I dont want to see anyone going to jail, but your in for some long worried nights.

Flame me if you want, but please read all the stuff going around from the legals, and look at the MP3 and VCR dubbing. This program was made to act like a copier, and with rising bandwidth and large 140gig florecent CD's coming out soon, I can't believe it wouldn't be used that way.

BTW the court pretty much hammered the 2600 guys in this initial hearing of injunction.

Good luck.

Our hopes (I'm not full of hops!) now rest with getting the ruling, then getting the judge overturned. I flat gar-en-tee that he will rule for the MPAA, and this will have to go another round.

First, join EFF.

Our next step is to make this case to John Q Public. We do that by telling our friends, neighbors, bosses, strangers, and the drunk in the gutter. In short, everyone.

Next, we write our newspapers, television stations, radio stations, and our elected officials. (As a note, you might let the local officials know you will help with their databases come next election. It is amazing how much talant they need and they don't even know it!)

Starting Friday, Feb. 4. 2K, we stand in front of the movie theater with our signs and the flyer from 2600. We need to have some effect, we have to be noticed, we can't go gently into that good night.

See ya on the picket line!

---

"If brains were radium, the MPAA wouldn't have enough to make a watch dial glow."

Me.

"First of all, defendants have submitted no evidence whatsoever that the primary purpose of DeCSS was to enable people in lawful possession of copyrighted DVDs to play them on Linux machines and not to copy them. Secondly, even if there were proof to that effect, there is no doubt that DeCSS was primarily designed or produced for the purpose prohibited in 1201(a)(2)(A) because the definition of "circumvent a technological measure" in 1201(a)(3) makes clear that decrypting or descrambling a copyrighted work without the authority of the copyright owner is the very definition of circumventing a technological measure. Therefore, even if the primary purpose here were to enable lawful possessors of copyrighted DVDs simply to play those DVDs on Linux machines, the primary purpose would have been within the statute.

http://www.2600.com/news/2000/0121-tra ns.txt The defense is unfortunately quite weak, and comes off as quite disorganized.

28 January 2000. Thanks to PK and 2600 .
Source: Fax of 10-page hardcopy

See related New York and Connecticut complaints: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-v-4.htm
New York court filings: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-v-3.htm
New York preliminary injunction: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-3-pi.htm

Compare request for relief here with excerpt of the preliminary injunction.

[Ten pages] [Fax header:]
JANUARY 26 2000 12:25 FR PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 11212 969 2926 TO *3939*53185005*7 P.02/11 - 11/11

Leon P. Gold (LG-1434)
William M. Hart (WH-1604)
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1585 Broadway
New York, New York 10036
(212) 969-3000 Telephone
(212) 969-2900 Facsimile

Jon A. Baumgarten (pro hac vice admission to be applied for)
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1233 20th Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036-2396
(202) 416-6800 Telephone
(202) 416-6899 Facsimile

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC.;
PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION;
METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC.;
TRISTAR PICTURES, INC.; COLUMBIA
PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC.; TIME WARNER
ENTERTAINMENT CO., L.P.; DISNEY
ENTERPRISES, INC.; AND TWENTIETH
CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v.

SHAWN C. REIMERDES; ERIC CORLEY A/K/A
"EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN"; AND ROMAN
KAZAN, Defendants. ___________________________________________ )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 00 Civ. 0277 (LAK)(RLE)



AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS
GOVERNING CIRCUMVENTION
OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
SYSTEMS, 17 U.S.C. 1201, et seq.

Plaintiffs Universal City Studios, Inc.; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc.; Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.; Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.; Disney Enterprises, Inc.; and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [illegible] attorneys Proskauer Rose LLP, as and for their amended complaint, allege as follows: Nature of Claims

1. This is an Amended Complaint for injunctive relief and related relief against Shawn C. Reimerdes ("Reimerdes"), Eric Corley a/k/a "Emmanuel Goldstein" ("Corley") and Roman Kazan ("Kazan") (collectively, the "Defendants"), individuals responsible for proliferating a digital device that unlawfully defeats the DVD copy protection and access control system -- the Content Scramble System ("CSS") -- so that individuals can make, distribute, and/or otherwise illegally transmit or perform unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures and/or audiovisual works. The acts of the Defendants, which are described more fully below, violate the provisions of the United States Copyright Act governing circumvention of copyright protection systems, 17 U.S.C. 1201, et seq. The Parties

2. Plaintiff Universal Studios, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

3. Plaintiff Paramount Pictures Corporation is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

4. Plaintiff Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

5. Plaintiff TriStar Pictures, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

6. Plaintiff Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

7. Plaintiff time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.

8. Plaintiff Disney Enterprises, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

9. Plaintiff Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

10. Plaintiffs are the major motion picture studios in the United States. Each plaintiff is engaged in the business of producing, manufacturing, and/or distribution of copyrightable and copyrighted material, including, specifically, motion pictures. Plaintiffs, either directly or through their affiliates, distribute motion pictures theatrically, via television broadcast, and on portable media such as videocassette tapes and digital versatile discs ("DVDs") for distribution to the home video market. In the course of its business, each plaintiff or its predecessor in rights obtained ownership of the United States copyrights, the exclusive reproduction, production, and/or distribution rights under United States copyrights, and/or state statutory and common law rights, in various motion pictures in DVD format in the United States, including such recent blockbusters as "Titanic" and "The Matrix," and approximately 4,000 titles which have been released in the United States on DVD to date. Current industry estimates place DVD sales at over 1,000,000 units per week.

11. On information and belief, defendant Reimerdes either resides or has his principal place of business at xxxxxx, NY xxxxx and/or xxxxxx, NY xxxxx. Defendant Reimerdes operates an Internet web site addressed as www.dvd-copy.com. [Addresses omitted by Cryptome.]

12. On information and belief, defendant Corley, who, on information and belief, uses nom de net "Emmanuel Goldstein, either resides or has his principal place of business at xxxxxx, New York. Corley a/k/a Emmanuel Goldstein operates an Internet web site at www.2600.com/news/1999/112-files/.

13. On information and belief, defendant Kazan either resides or has his principal place of business at xxxxxx, New York xxxxx. Defendant Kazan operates an Internet web site at www.krackdown.com/decss/. Jurisdiction and Venue

14. The Court has jurisdiction of this action under 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., 28 U.S.C. [illegible] (federal question) and 1338(a) (copyright).

15. This court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in that each Defendant resides or has his principal place of business in the State of New York.

16. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. [illegible](a) as (a) this is a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, and/or (b) all of the defendants reside in the State of New York and this is a federal district in which some of the defendants reside, and/or (c) this is a judicial district in which some of the defendants may be found, and there is no judicial district in which the action may otherwise be brought. Background Facts

DVD Technology

17. With the advent of the VCR and videocassette tapes, home viewing of motion pictures became a convenient, inexpensive way to enjoy motion pictures. DVDs are 5-inch-wide discs that hold full-length motion pictures, are the most current technological advancement for private home viewing of motion pictures. This technology significantly improves the clarity and the overall quality of the motion picture when played on a television screen or computer monitor.

18. DVDs incorporating full-length motion pictures, together with additional and ancillary features such as interviews and alternative sound tracks, can be played back for viewing in the home by dedicated, free standing "DVD players" and by personal computers configured with a DVD "drive" and additional hardware or software modules, sometimes referred to as "media players."

19. DVDs contain digital information. When motion pictures in form are digital copied or transmitted, the clarity and overall quality of the motion pictures do not suffer (as they do when a copy is made from an analog source, such as a video cassette). Moreover, the fact that the motion pictures contained on DVDs are in digital format allows any unauthorized copies of those motion pictures from DVDs to be transmitted over the Internet, stored in computer [illegible], and duplicated for unlawful sale, transfer and exchange. Once these copies are in the hands of another user, the unlawful process can begin once again because the copies have the clarity and quality of the original DVDs containing the motion picture.

Contents Scramble Systems ("CSS")

20. Because motion pictures in unprotected digital format on DVDs would be subject to ready unlimited copying and create a threat to the market viability of DVD technology, the plaintiffs were reluctant to release valuable film libraries and new film releases without the implementation of a copy protection and access control system. Plaintiffs therefore ultimately accepted a copy protection and access control system developed by Matshusita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. and Toshiba Corporation -- the Contents Scramble System ("CSS") -- in order to provide security to the copyrighted contents of DVDs and thereby provide protection for the copyrighted content against unauthorized copying. CSS includes elements of encryption and other security and authentication measures that require DVD playback devices, including appropriately configured personal computers, to operate with certain keys in order to descramble and intelligibly play back copies of motion pictures from DVDs. All members of the DVD industry, including software and hardware manufacturers of DVD players, DVD replicators and the content providers -- the motion picture studios -- adopted CSS as direct licensees or by [illegible] through CSS licensees.

21. Each of the plaintiffs relied upon the security provided by CSS in manufacturing, protecting and distributing to the public copyrighted motion pictures in DVD format. Those motion pictures, may of which involved investments of tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars, were distributed on CSS-protected DVDs.

Descrambling of CSS and the Creation and Proliferation of the "DeCSS" Utility

22. On information and belief, hackers in Europe were able to descramble the encryption on DVDs and create -- and post on the World Wide Web -- an unauthorized utility commonly referred to as "DeCSS," which allows motion pictures in DVD format to be decrypted and illegally copied.

23. Subsequently, defendant Reimerdes posted DeCSS on his Internet Web site, www.dvd-copy, along with the statement "Yes, you can trade DVD movie files over the Internet. You can break the encryption on any DVD and allow users to copy the contents of a DVD into the a [sic] hard drive or alternative media! Notice: The DVD Copy Control Association are cocksuckers!" Reimerdes also told Internet users,under a section titled "How To Find/Trade FREE DVD Movies Online," that "people gather online in impromptu communities to trade these digital copies through one-to-one file transfers and group chatting."

24. Defendant Eric Corley a/k/a Emmanuel goldstein also posted DeCSS on his Internet web site www.2600.com/news/1112-files. In addition, Corley has designed and and in that site "hot links" to the DeCSS file. Corley's site states that DeCSS is a "free DVD decoder" that allows "people to copy DVDs." Corley's site also exhorts others ("as many of you as possible all throughout the world") to "take and mirror [the DeCSS] files. . . ."

25. Defendant Roman Kazan also posted DeCSS on his Internet web site, www.krackdown.com/decss/. Claim for Relief
(Violation of Provisions Governing Circumvention
of Copyright Protection Systems,
17 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.)

26. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive.

27. The Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2), provides that:

[n]o person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that:

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

28. Each defendant offers to the public, provides, or otherwise traffics in, DeCSS through his Internet website.

29. CSS is a technological measure that (a) effectively controls access to works protected by the Copyright Act, and (b) effectively protects rights of copyright owners to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyright works or portions thereof.

30. DeCSS (a) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing the protection afforded by CSS, (b) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent CSS or the protection afforded by CSS, and/or (c) is marketed by Defendants and/or others acting in concert with them with the knowledge of its use in circumventing CSS or the protection afforded by CSS.

31. By offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS, Defendants have violated the provisions governing Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems set forth in the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

32. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants' violations will continue. Plaintiffs' remedy at law is not adequate. Protection of Plaintiffs' rights must include an injunction. Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows:

1. For agrant of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and all other persons in active concert or privity or in participation with them, enjoining them from:

(a) posting on any Internet website, linking to , or in any other way manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS, and [emphasis by Cryptome]

(b) posting on any Internet website, linking to , or in any other way manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that: [emphasis by Cryptome]

(i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing, or circumventing the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by Plaintiffs that effectively controls access to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the Plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof,

(ii) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent, or to circumvent the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by the Plaintiffs' that effectively controls access to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the Plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof, or

(iii) is marketed by Defendants and/or others acting in concert with them with the knowledge of its use in circumventing, or circumventing the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by Plaintiffs that effectively controls access to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the Plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof, and

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

January 26, 2000

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

By: ______________________

Leon P. Gold (LG-1434)
William M. Hart (WH-1604)
1585 Broadway
New York, New York 10036
(212) 969-3000 Telephone
(212) 969-2900 Facsimile - and -

Jon A. Baumgarten (pro hac vice admission
to be applied for)
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1233 20th Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036-2396
(202) 416-6800 Telephone
(202) 416-6899 Facsimile

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

[Excerpt from preliminary injunction of January 20, 2000 provided for comparison:]

ORDERED, as follows:

1. Plaintiffs' motion is granted.

2. Defendants Shawn C. Reimerdes, Eric Corley a/k/a "Emmanuel Goldstein" and Roman Kazan, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise be and they hereby are enjoined and restrained, pending the hearing and final determination of this action from:

(a) posting on any Internet web site, or in any other way manufacturing, importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS, and

(b) posting on any Internet web site, or in any other way manufacturing, importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that:

(i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing, or circumvention the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by plaintiffs that effectively controls access to plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof;

(ii) has only limited commercially significant purposes or use other than to circumvent, or to circumvent the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by plaintiffs that effectively controls access to plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof; or

(iii) is marketed by defendants and/or others acting in concert with them with the knowledge of its use in circumventing, or in circumventing the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by plaintiffs that effectively controls access to the plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof.

Transcription and HTML by Cryptome.

28 January 2000. Thanks to PK and 2600 .
Source: Fax of 10-page hardcopy

See related New York and Connecticut complaints: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-v-4.htm
New York court filings: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-v-3.htm
New York preliminary injunction: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-3-pi.htm

Compare request for relief here with excerpt of the preliminary injunction.

[Ten pages] [Fax header:]
JANUARY 26 2000 12:25 FR PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 11212 969 2926 TO *3939*53185005*7 P.02/11 - 11/11

Leon P. Gold (LG-1434)
William M. Hart (WH-1604)
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1585 Broadway
New York, New York 10036
(212) 969-3000 Telephone
(212) 969-2900 Facsimile

Jon A. Baumgarten (pro hac vice admission to be applied for)
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1233 20th Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036-2396
(202) 416-6800 Telephone
(202) 416-6899 Facsimile

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC.;
PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION;
METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC.;
TRISTAR PICTURES, INC.; COLUMBIA
PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC.; TIME WARNER
ENTERTAINMENT CO., L.P.; DISNEY
ENTERPRISES, INC.; AND TWENTIETH
CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v.

SHAWN C. REIMERDES; ERIC CORLEY A/K/A
"EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN"; AND ROMAN
KAZAN, Defendants. ___________________________________________ )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 00 Civ. 0277 (LAK)(RLE)



AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS
GOVERNING CIRCUMVENTION
OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
SYSTEMS, 17 U.S.C. 1201, et seq.

Plaintiffs Universal City Studios, Inc.; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc.; Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.; Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.; Disney Enterprises, Inc.; and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [illegible] attorneys Proskauer Rose LLP, as and for their amended complaint, allege as follows: Nature of Claims

1. This is an Amended Complaint for injunctive relief and related relief against Shawn C. Reimerdes ("Reimerdes"), Eric Corley a/k/a "Emmanuel Goldstein" ("Corley") and Roman Kazan ("Kazan") (collectively, the "Defendants"), individuals responsible for proliferating a digital device that unlawfully defeats the DVD copy protection and access control system -- the Content Scramble System ("CSS") -- so that individuals can make, distribute, and/or otherwise illegally transmit or perform unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures and/or audiovisual works. The acts of the Defendants, which are described more fully below, violate the provisions of the United States Copyright Act governing circumvention of copyright protection systems, 17 U.S.C. 1201, et seq. The Parties

2. Plaintiff Universal Studios, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

3. Plaintiff Paramount Pictures Corporation is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

4. Plaintiff Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

5. Plaintiff TriStar Pictures, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

6. Plaintiff Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

7. Plaintiff time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.

8. Plaintiff Disney Enterprises, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

9. Plaintiff Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

10. Plaintiffs are the major motion picture studios in the United States. Each plaintiff is engaged in the business of producing, manufacturing, and/or distribution of copyrightable and copyrighted material, including, specifically, motion pictures. Plaintiffs, either directly or through their affiliates, distribute motion pictures theatrically, via television broadcast, and on portable media such as videocassette tapes and digital versatile discs ("DVDs") for distribution to the home video market. In the course of its business, each plaintiff or its predecessor in rights obtained ownership of the United States copyrights, the exclusive reproduction, production, and/or distribution rights under United States copyrights, and/or state statutory and common law rights, in various motion pictures in DVD format in the United States, including such recent blockbusters as "Titanic" and "The Matrix," and approximately 4,000 titles which have been released in the United States on DVD to date. Current industry estimates place DVD sales at over 1,000,000 units per week.

11. On information and belief, defendant Reimerdes either resides or has his principal place of business at xxxxxx, NY xxxxx and/or xxxxxx, NY xxxxx. Defendant Reimerdes operates an Internet web site addressed as www.dvd-copy.com. [Addresses omitted by Cryptome.]

12. On information and belief, defendant Corley, who, on information and belief, uses nom de net "Emmanuel Goldstein, either resides or has his principal place of business at xxxxxx, New York. Corley a/k/a Emmanuel Goldstein operates an Internet web site at www.2600.com/news/1999/112-files/.

13. On information and belief, defendant Kazan either resides or has his principal place of business at xxxxxx, New York xxxxx. Defendant Kazan operates an Internet web site at www.krackdown.com/decss/. Jurisdiction and Venue

14. The Court has jurisdiction of this action under 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., 28 U.S.C. [illegible] (federal question) and 1338(a) (copyright).

15. This court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in that each Defendant resides or has his principal place of business in the State of New York.

16. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. [illegible](a) as (a) this is a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, and/or (b) all of the defendants reside in the State of New York and this is a federal district in which some of the defendants reside, and/or (c) this is a judicial district in which some of the defendants may be found, and there is no judicial district in which the action may otherwise be brought. Background Facts

DVD Technology

17. With the advent of the VCR and videocassette tapes, home viewing of motion pictures became a convenient, inexpensive way to enjoy motion pictures. DVDs are 5-inch-wide discs that hold full-length motion pictures, are the most current technological advancement for private home viewing of motion pictures. This technology significantly improves the clarity and the overall quality of the motion picture when played on a television screen or computer monitor.

18. DVDs incorporating full-length motion pictures, together with additional and ancillary features such as interviews and alternative sound tracks, can be played back for viewing in the home by dedicated, free standing "DVD players" and by personal computers configured with a DVD "drive" and additional hardware or software modules, sometimes referred to as "media players."

19. DVDs contain digital information. When motion pictures in form are digital copied or transmitted, the clarity and overall quality of the motion pictures do not suffer (as they do when a copy is made from an analog source, such as a video cassette). Moreover, the fact that the motion pictures contained on DVDs are in digital format allows any unauthorized copies of those motion pictures from DVDs to be transmitted over the Internet, stored in computer [illegible], and duplicated for unlawful sale, transfer and exchange. Once these copies are in the hands of another user, the unlawful process can begin once again because the copies have the clarity and quality of the original DVDs containing the motion picture.

Contents Scramble Systems ("CSS")

20. Because motion pictures in unprotected digital format on DVDs would be subject to ready unlimited copying and create a threat to the market viability of DVD technology, the plaintiffs were reluctant to release valuable film libraries and new film releases without the implementation of a copy protection and access control system. Plaintiffs therefore ultimately accepted a copy protection and access control system developed by Matshusita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. and Toshiba Corporation -- the Contents Scramble System ("CSS") -- in order to provide security to the copyrighted contents of DVDs and thereby provide protection for the copyrighted content against unauthorized copying. CSS includes elements of encryption and other security and authentication measures that require DVD playback devices, including appropriately configured personal computers, to operate with certain keys in order to descramble and intelligibly play back copies of motion pictures from DVDs. All members of the DVD industry, including software and hardware manufacturers of DVD players, DVD replicators and the content providers -- the motion picture studios -- adopted CSS as direct licensees or by [illegible] through CSS licensees.

21. Each of the plaintiffs relied upon the security provided by CSS in manufacturing, protecting and distributing to the public copyrighted motion pictures in DVD format. Those motion pictures, may of which involved investments of tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars, were distributed on CSS-protected DVDs.

Descrambling of CSS and the Creation and Proliferation of the "DeCSS" Utility

22. On information and belief, hackers in Europe were able to descramble the encryption on DVDs and create -- and post on the World Wide Web -- an unauthorized utility commonly referred to as "DeCSS," which allows motion pictures in DVD format to be decrypted and illegally copied.

23. Subsequently, defendant Reimerdes posted DeCSS on his Internet Web site, www.dvd-copy, along with the statement "Yes, you can trade DVD movie files over the Internet. You can break the encryption on any DVD and allow users to copy the contents of a DVD into the a [sic] hard drive or alternative media! Notice: The DVD Copy Control Association are cocksuckers!" Reimerdes also told Internet users,under a section titled "How To Find/Trade FREE DVD Movies Online," that "people gather online in impromptu communities to trade these digital copies through one-to-one file transfers and group chatting."

24. Defendant Eric Corley a/k/a Emmanuel goldstein also posted DeCSS on his Internet web site www.2600.com/news/1112-files. In addition, Corley has designed and and in that site "hot links" to the DeCSS file. Corley's site states that DeCSS is a "free DVD decoder" that allows "people to copy DVDs." Corley's site also exhorts others ("as many of you as possible all throughout the world") to "take and mirror [the DeCSS] files. . . ."

25. Defendant Roman Kazan also posted DeCSS on his Internet web site, www.krackdown.com/decss/. Claim for Relief
(Violation of Provisions Governing Circumvention
of Copyright Protection Systems,
17 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.)

26. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive.

27. The Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2), provides that:

[n]o person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that:

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

28. Each defendant offers to the public, provides, or otherwise traffics in, DeCSS through his Internet website.

29. CSS is a technological measure that (a) effectively controls access to works protected by the Copyright Act, and (b) effectively protects rights of copyright owners to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyright works or portions thereof.

30. DeCSS (a) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing the protection afforded by CSS, (b) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent CSS or the protection afforded by CSS, and/or (c) is marketed by Defendants and/or others acting in concert with them with the knowledge of its use in circumventing CSS or the protection afforded by CSS.

31. By offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS, Defendants have violated the provisions governing Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems set forth in the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

32. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants' violations will continue. Plaintiffs' remedy at law is not adequate. Protection of Plaintiffs' rights must include an injunction. Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows:

1. For agrant of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and all other persons in active concert or privity or in participation with them, enjoining them from:

(a) posting on any Internet website, linking to , or in any other way manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS, and [emphasis by Cryptome]

(b) posting on any Internet website, linking to , or in any other way manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that: [emphasis by Cryptome]

(i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing, or circumventing the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by Plaintiffs that effectively controls access to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the Plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof,

(ii) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent, or to circumvent the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by the Plaintiffs' that effectively controls access to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the Plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof, or

(iii) is marketed by Defendants and/or others acting in concert with them with the knowledge of its use in circumventing, or circumventing the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by Plaintiffs that effectively controls access to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the Plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof, and

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

January 26, 2000

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

By: ______________________

Leon P. Gold (LG-1434)
William M. Hart (WH-1604)
1585 Broadway
New York, New York 10036
(212) 969-3000 Telephone
(212) 969-2900 Facsimile - and -

Jon A. Baumgarten (pro hac vice admission
to be applied for)
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1233 20th Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036-2396
(202) 416-6800 Telephone
(202) 416-6899 Facsimile

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

[Excerpt from preliminary injunction of January 20, 2000 provided for comparison:]

ORDERED, as follows:

1. Plaintiffs' motion is granted.

2. Defendants Shawn C. Reimerdes, Eric Corley a/k/a "Emmanuel Goldstein" and Roman Kazan, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise be and they hereby are enjoined and restrained, pending the hearing and final determination of this action from:

(a) posting on any Internet web site, or in any other way manufacturing, importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS, and

(b) posting on any Internet web site, or in any other way manufacturing, importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that:

(i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing, or circumvention the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by plaintiffs that effectively controls access to plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof;

(ii) has only limited commercially significant purposes or use other than to circumvent, or to circumvent the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by plaintiffs that effectively controls access to plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof; or

(iii) is marketed by defendants and/or others acting in concert with them with the knowledge of its use in circumventing, or in circumventing the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by plaintiffs that effectively controls access to the plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof.

Transcription and HTML by Cryptome.

2 February 2000

Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:13:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Macki <macki@2600.com>
To: dvd@2600.com
Subject: Press release - Anti-MPAA event planned

February 2, 2000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DAY OF ACTION PLANNED AGAINST MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION IN 100 CITIES

Members of the hacker and open source communities worldwide, along with various civil liberties groups, are planning a massive leafletting campaign on Friday, February 4 to call attention to the recent attempts by the Motion Picture Association of America to shut down thousands of websites.

Lawsuits have been filed against hundreds of people, as well as an Internet Service Provider and a magazine, for having information the MPAA wants to keep secret.

The controversy centers around a computer program known as DeCSS, thought to be written by a 16 year old in Norway. The program defeats the encryption scheme used by DVD's which prohibits them from being viewed on non-approved machines or computers. It also enables DVD's from one country to be played in another, contrary to the wishes of the movie industry. It does NOT facilitate DVD piracy - in fact, copying DVD's has been possible since their introduction years ago. In its press releases on the subject, the MPAA has claimed that this is a piracy issue and they have subsequently succeeded in getting injunctions against a number of sites that had posted the program in the interests of free speech.

This is in effect a lawsuit against the entire Internet community by extremely powerful corporate interests. The lawsuit and the various actions being planned promise to be a real showdown between two increasingly disparate sides in the technological age. The consequences of losing this case are so serious that civil libertarians, professors, lawyers, and a wide variety of others have already stepped forward to help out.

Friday's action will be coordinated in 74 cities throughout North America and 26 cities in other parts of the world. Leafletting will take place outside theaters and video stores in these cities - all of which participate in a monthly "2600" gathering. 2600 Magazine has been named in two lawsuits regarding the DeCSS program and has joined with the the growing number of people who will fight these actions by the MPAA until the end.

The lawsuit has been filed by the Motion Picture Association of America, Columbia/Tristar, Universal City Studios, Paramount Pictures, Disney Enterprises, Twentieth Century Fox, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, and Time Warner Entertainment.

Contact:
Emmanuel Goldstein
(631) 751-2600 ext. 0

See 2600

DVD-DeCSS Report: Fade to Black

Legal Report: DVD Desperadoes

http://www.2600.com/news/2000/0121-tr ans.html

The judge is BLATANTLY hostile to the lawyers, and extraordinarily dismissive of any argument he allows them to bring. No opposition? Hrm. Opposition must mean something totally different in a legal sense. Can't they get a change of venue or something due to outrageous bias?

Leilah

2600 has posted and excellent flyer that really spells out the issue for people who don't already know. Let's circulate this as much as possible and try to get the MPAA to see that the movie-going public doesn't appreciate their strong-arm tactics.

The DMCA allows corporations to make an end-run around fair use rights. This is a point that's missed by a lot of people commenting on this issue. The DeCSS case is not about copying. Even the MPAA's lawyers admit this.

The suit is filed under a section of the law (1201(a)(2)) which prohibits anyone from offering or distributing any technology "that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected." This lawsuit is *not* filed under the slightly less objectionable section 1201(b)(1)(A) which offers a similar prohibition against technology whose primary purpose is "circumventing protection that ... protects a right of a copyright holder."

Now, if this suit were about 1201(b), it is likely that the defendants could successfully defend themselves, as it is not a "right of a copyright holder" to restrict fair use. As a result, a piece of software that enables fair use would likely not run afoul of this section.

Unfortunately, section 1201(a) is much more insidious. Though it has an exemption for fair use, the defendants are unable to avail themselves of that exemption, as -they- are not exercising fair use by distributing the software. Rather, they are enabling -others- to exercise fair use. There is no protection for this activity (other than potentially speech under the 1st Amendment...)

So, in the absence of specific exemptions in the law, let's examine whether the defendants comitted an offence that falls under s. 1201(a) of the DMCA. Do the defendants offer or distribute the technology in question? Yes (at least those defendants who are distributing rather than linking). Is the technology in question primarily designed to circumvent a technological measure? Yes - clearly, DeCSS circumvents a technological measure known as encryption. Does that technical measure "control access to a work protected" under the act. Again, yes - Without dealing with the technical measure, one cannot view the data stored on the DVD.

This brings us to the issue of the DMCA itself, and particularly s. 1201(a). This section is simply bad law. The phrase "controls access to a work protected..." is far too sweeping, broad and vague. This law provides a new effective right to copyright holders to "control access" to copyrighted material in any manner they choose. It prevents the average consumer, who has little knowledge about the mechanics of taking advantage of their fair use rights, from obtaining assistance in taking advantage of these fair use rights. What is attacked here is not the right to *use* or to *posess* this tool, what is attacked is the right to distribute this tool.

This issue comes down to a prohibition of speech. We likely agree, and some courts do as well, that source code is speech. What needs to be decided is whether this is *protected* speech.

2 February 2000

Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:13:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Macki <macki@2600.com>
To: dvd@2600.com
Subject: Press release - Anti-MPAA event planned

February 2, 2000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DAY OF ACTION PLANNED AGAINST MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION IN 100 CITIES

Members of the hacker and open source communities worldwide, along with various civil liberties groups, are planning a massive leafletting campaign on Friday, February 4 to call attention to the recent attempts by the Motion Picture Association of America to shut down thousands of websites.

Lawsuits have been filed against hundreds of people, as well as an Internet Service Provider and a magazine, for having information the MPAA wants to keep secret.

The controversy centers around a computer program known as DeCSS, thought to be written by a 16 year old in Norway. The program defeats the encryption scheme used by DVD's which prohibits them from being viewed on non-approved machines or computers. It also enables DVD's from one country to be played in another, contrary to the wishes of the movie industry. It does NOT facilitate DVD piracy - in fact, copying DVD's has been possible since their introduction years ago. In its press releases on the subject, the MPAA has claimed that this is a piracy issue and they have subsequently succeeded in getting injunctions against a number of sites that had posted the program in the interests of free speech.

This is in effect a lawsuit against the entire Internet community by extremely powerful corporate interests. The lawsuit and the various actions being planned promise to be a real showdown between two increasingly disparate sides in the technological age. The consequences of losing this case are so serious that civil libertarians, professors, lawyers, and a wide variety of others have already stepped forward to help out.

Friday's action will be coordinated in 74 cities throughout North America and 26 cities in other parts of the world. Leafletting will take place outside theaters and video stores in these cities - all of which participate in a monthly "2600" gathering. 2600 Magazine has been named in two lawsuits regarding the DeCSS program and has joined with the the growing number of people who will fight these actions by the MPAA until the end.

The lawsuit has been filed by the Motion Picture Association of America, Columbia/Tristar, Universal City Studios, Paramount Pictures, Disney Enterprises, Twentieth Century Fox, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, and Time Warner Entertainment.

Contact:
Emmanuel Goldstein
(631) 751-2600 ext. 0

See 2600

DVD-DeCSS Report: Fade to Black

Legal Report: DVD Desperadoes

I don't think people are realizing exactly what the MPAA is suing about. What they are suing about (and saying is illegal, which I personally DO NOT think should be illegal, but is true) is using ANY program or method (i.e. DeCSS) to circumvent the encryption method (CSS) to get at copyrighted material (DVD movie). Read the text of the preliminary injunction from 2600's discussion of it. This is (I think) the most important part:

THE COURT: Of course it is. The whole point here is that CSS is designed to protect against even the playing of a copyrighted DVD except with a player using a licensed CSS key. And if you go ahead and put out DeCSS for the purpose of playing it without using a player with the licensed technology, you have done it primarily for the purpose of circumventing the measure. Isn't that true?

I don't think people are realizing exactly what the MPAA is suing about. What they are suing about (and saying is illegal, which I personally DO NOT think should be illegal, but is true) is using ANY program or method (i.e. DeCSS) to circumvent the encryption method (CSS) to get at copyrighted material (DVD movie). Read the text of the preliminary injunction from 2600's discussion of it. This is (I think) the most important part:

THE COURT: Of course it is. The whole point here is that CSS is designed to protect against even the playing of a copyrighted DVD except with a player using a licensed CSS key. And if you go ahead and put out DeCSS for the purpose of playing it without using a player with the licensed technology, you have done it primarily for the purpose of circumventing the measure. Isn't that true?

I don't think people are realizing exactly what the MPAA is suing about. What they are suing about (and saying is illegal, which I personally DO NOT think should be illegal, but is true) is using ANY program or method (i.e. DeCSS) to circumvent the encryption method (CSS) to get at copyrighted material (DVD movie). Read the text of the preliminary injunction from 2600's discussion of it. This is (I think) the most important part:

THE COURT: Of course it is. The whole point here is that CSS is designed to protect against even the playing of a copyrighted DVD except with a player using a licensed CSS key. And if you go ahead and put out DeCSS for the purpose of playing it without using a player with the licensed technology, you have done it primarily for the purpose of circumventing the measure. Isn't that true?

The MPAA is at it again! Yet another injunction has been filed against 2600 on 26, Jan. 2000. This time to stop LINKING to sites with DeCSS.

The MPAA is at it again! Yet another injunction has been filed against 2600 on 26, Jan. 2000. This time to stop LINKING to sites with DeCSS.

The MPAA is at it again! Yet another injunction has been filed against 2600 on 26, Jan. 2000. This time to stop LINKING to sites with DeCSS.

The MPAA is at it again! Yet another injunction has been filed against 2600 on 26, Jan. 2000. This time to stop LINKING to sites with DeCSS.

The MPAA is at it again! Yet another injunction has been filed against 2600 on 26, Jan. 2000. This time to stop LINKING to sites with DeCSS.

The MPAA is at it again! Yet another injunction has been filed against 2600 on 26, Jan. 2000. This time to stop LINKING to sites with DeCSS.

The California case is moot. It's a trade secret case that doesn't have impact outside of California. It's the federal DMCA case we really need to be watching; that's the scary one.

What's extremely interesting is that Judge Kaplan in New York is applying the DMCA only against executable code; he's making the distinction between machine-readable executable code and "non-executable programmer's comments", which can be argued to be a fair description of source code. He's essentially saying that machine-readable code is not covered as free speech and that no one is asking to crack down on "comments".

The line he seems to be drawing (page 77-78 of transcript ) is at direct executability. If that holds, it's even another ace for open source - source code will be considered free speech (i.e., not a "device") under the DMCA.

Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out that the most-hated DMCA actually becomes the best friend the free software community ever had?

Defendent #46

www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Po rt/3224

Read the transcript and look at page 77, lines 7 to 25.

This case is not about css-auth, but about DeCSS, a Windows binary executable. Kaplan makes the firm distinction between "programmer's comments" and "machine instructions". The distinction he makes is that one is directly executable - and therefore is closer to a "device" than an intellectual expression - and the other is not. His point is that a set of machine instructions has limited expressiveness, as it is primarily meant to be interpreted by a machine and not a human being. It is therefore not, in his opinion, necessarily protected as free speech.

The important distinction here is that source code is not directly executable by a machine. It must be compiled; until then it is no different from a written mathematical formula. Source code is not directly discussed in this hearing transcript - the debate is between executable code and "programmer's comments". But even if Kaplan's reading of the DMCA holds, and direct executability is the critical factor, then source-only distribution is protected as free speech and the rest is paperwork.

Just something to think about.

Defendent #46

www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Po rt/3224

One of the things I read recently at about page 40 of the transcript at http://www.2600.com/news/2000/0121-trans .txt was that nobody is trying to restrain the posting alone of programmer's notes without the DeCSS source code. The Court seems to be considering that source code does not constitute free speech. Somebody could, however, write an English description of the algorithm. This would not be executable code, but it would be a "blueprint" from which executable code could be written. It may well be more likely to attract the protection of the First Amendment. I can't do it because I'm a British citizen, and we do not have free speech in this country. A US citizen would be able to do so, though. Disclaimer: IANAL. This may well be wrong!

Now, look, Ms. Gross, please. I really think that it's a mistake to assume that you're talking to a moron.

What you [Gross] did is left out the [words] that hurt you. It says, "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement" -- those are the words you left out -- "including fair use." In other words, were you being sued for copyright infringement, nothing here would take away your fair use defense. But you are not being sued for copyright infringement.

We have obtained the transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing that was held on January 20 and which wound up going against us. Exchanges like this show why this happened:

MR. LEVY: I'm sorry, your Honor. I actually have a technology expert with me. Would the Court like to or would they agree to hear a very brief statement on this point from that expert?

THE COURT: No.

Now, look, Ms. Gross, please. I really think that it's a mistake to assume that you're talking to a moron.

What you [Gross] did is left out the [words] that hurt you. It says, "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement" -- those are the words you left out -- "including fair use." In other words, were you being sued for copyright infringement, nothing here would take away your fair use defense. But you are not being sued for copyright infringement.

We have obtained the transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing that was held on January 20 and which wound up going against us. Exchanges like this show why this happened:

MR. LEVY: I'm sorry, your Honor. I actually have a technology expert with me. Would the Court like to or would they agree to hear a very brief statement on this point from that expert?

THE COURT: No.