Slashdot Mirror

http://www.cryptome.org
http://jya.com/crypto-free.htm
Learning About Cryptography
Ritter's Crypto Glossary and
Dictionary of Technical Cryptography
Encryption & Security Tutorial
N.A. Crypto Archives
International PGP site
NSA National Cryptologic Museum
EFF
attrition.org crypto archive
Bruce Schneier's Crypto-Gram

and last, but not least (the archive i developed) ....

PacketStorm Crypto Archives

there are lots and lots of excellent tutorials, docs, glossaries, and links to many of the great crypto sites in the world at all of the URLs above.

for the best info on NSA, ECHELON, misc paranoia, you should first check out Cryptome/JYA. i archived quite a bit of stuff related to your questions at the packetstorm site too - packetstorm.securify.com/crypt/nsa/.

feel free to email me directly if you like too. over the years, i have had some interesting experiences with the NSA, BXA, etc - primarily regarding my hosting of crypto archives, and personal investigations of NSA, ECHELON. if you want to discuss these things, get the pgp key for ken.williams@ey.com from www.keyserver.net, and send your key(s) and crypted msgs to tattooman@genocide2600.com

"..., computer source code, though unintelligible to many, is the preferred method of communication among computer programers."

The government can this filter/that[sic] blackbox whatever much they want, we can still develop things like ANTIOCH, go outside of 'the internet' and the phone systems and do whatever we want. Hell, we could even go back to using types of computers with protocols, interfaces and formats so antiquated they would have no idea what kind of data we were sending.

And I wonder, is this a documented case of this Mitnik guy or just some vaguely remembered anecdote? Because it's pretty damn hard to lock somebody up for four years without trial or bail for stealing commercial secrets. Maybe military secrets? That I could see. But I've seen cases like this and not even the majorest of major corporations can get that kind of preferential treatment.

Lincoln did not usurp any states' rights--as I recall those states had voluntarily seceeded, which is not allowed for in the constitution--the constitution of a union which they had voluntarily joined, knowing it had no concessions for secession. From the standpoint of the union they had not seceeded, but were firing their guns at the union forces. This was before slavery was declared illegal that the confederacy began shooting, and they shot first.

Article. VII. The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

NSA only monitors international communications. They do not have clearance or mandate to investigate or monitor domestic communications, nor are they allowed to have other countries' agencies do it for them. That kind of thing is carried out by the FBI, usually, or possibly the CIA.

You seem to think there is nothing more important in life than business, making money and a living and getting what you want materially. Well, that's fine for you but there are those of us who don't look at life that way.

I would gladly go to jail for 4 to 6 years if government wanted to put a box on my connection.

And I know the next guy down the line would be saying "look at that guy, look at his sacrifice" and figure it was really important, and while some would take the box, others would follow my example or stand out in their own way.

And what would the government do, arrest the whole country?

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

You can always search for "quantum computing" in a search engine, but here ya go.

Quantum Computing - Lov Grover

If you want a good book on quantum mechanics but you're not a real physicist, try The Dancing Wu-Li Masters, by somebody whose name I forget. Search for it on Amazon, read the reviews, and then (of course) buy it elsewhere.

Cryptome has an article on upcoming hearings to reassess the copyright circumvention clause of the DMCA. It has an email address for comments until Mar 31. This is a chance to chip away at the excessive controls on IP by the commercial sector. One could submit suggestions and ideas, especially from bigger groups and experts (relevant testimony to the advantages and drawbacks). Please be responsible and reasonable, though - this looks like a pretty formal process.


... . . .

Cryptome has an article on upcoming hearings to reassess the copyright circumvention clause of the DMCA. It has an email address for comments until Mar 31. This is a chance to chip away at the excessive controls on IP by the commercial sector. One could submit suggestions and ideas, especially from bigger groups and experts (relevant testimony to the advantages and drawbacks). Please be responsible and reasonable, though - this looks like a pretty formal process.


... . . .

Cryptome has an article on upcoming hearings to reassess the copyright circumvention clause of the DMCA. It has an email address for comments until Mar 31. This is a chance to chip away at the excessive controls on IP by the commercial sector. One could submit suggestions and ideas, especially from bigger groups and experts (relevant testimony to the advantages and drawbacks). Please be responsible and reasonable, though - this looks like a pretty formal process.

dingus

Cryptome has an article on upcoming hearings to reassess the copyright circumvention clause of the DMCA. It has an email address for comments until Mar 31. This is a chance to chip away at the excessive controls on IP by the commercial sector. One could submit suggestions and ideas, especially from bigger groups and experts (relevant testimony to the advantages and drawbacks). Please be responsible and reasonable, though - this looks like a pretty formal process.

dingus

Over the past week the Motion Picture Association of America has intensified its efforts to bully and harass individual Internet users by sending out a new series of email threats. Using little more than bluff and bluster they've also managed in recent weeks to shut down countless websites, convince employers to fire employees, and get schools to take disciplinary actions against students for doing little more than taking part in an act of solidarity on their private homepages.

John Young, who maintains the Cryptome, is one of the hundreds of John Doe defendants in the California DVD case. In addition to a copy of DeCSS, Young published a copy of the now-infamous Hoy Declaration, in which the DVD Copy Control Association inadvertently included a copy of the very information they were trying to suppress in public court filings. He was among the first to bear the brunt of a wave of cease and desist letters for posting the source code to DeCSS. The letter reads in part:

The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California also recently granted a preliminary Injunction against the Internet posting of DeCSS.

If you are bound by an injunction, maintaining the DeCSS utility on your system or network violates the above injunction[s] and risks court sanctions for contempt.

Over the past week, we have received numerous reports of this threatening letter being sent to web site owners worldwide. It appears the MPAA is simply going down the list of mirrored sites and sending a letter to everybody.

Geography and national sovereignty are clearly foreign concepts to this multinational corporation. The effects of globalization seem to have impaired their faculties more than previously thought. They proceeded to send similar letters to people all over the world. Tom Vogt, also named as a defendant in the California case, resides in Germany. The letter the MPAA sent him insisting that he comply with the California injunction, refers to the preliminary draft of an unratified convention. That's right, the best they could do was threaten him with an unsigned treaty.

Earlier this month Grant Bayley received a cease and desist letter for hosting DeCSS on his webpage for the Australian 2600 meeting. Both Bayley and the server are located in Australia. As expressed in the meeting guidelines, 2600 meetings are organized on their own, anyone can start one, and they are pretty much autonomous. According to an Australian journalist who spoke with the chief counsel for the MPAA, 2600 Australia is being singled out simply because of its name. Presumably this is also why they chose to go after A.Sleep, operator of the Connecticut 2600 meeting's webpage in his very own federal lawsuit. One can only imagine what the MPAA must be thinking.

In an age where anyone is capable of exercising free speech to mass audiences via the Internet, there is a disturbing trend that this freedom is limited not by the strength of one's convictions nor one's access to technology. Rather it is dependant on the will and resources of one's Internet Service Provider. It is common for ISPs to cancel accounts or remove content at the first hints of any controversy. It didn't take long for big business to figure this out and they've been exploiting lawsuit-fearing ISPs ever since. One can hardly blame the average ISP for bowing to such impressive cease and desist letters. Often they're barely breaking even as it is, and nuking one $10 a month webpage is a simple business decision when being threatened with a million dollar lawsuit.

What's far more troubling is the ease in which traditional safe havens for free expression, like universities and other academic institutions, are willing to sell out their students. Zach Karpinski stands out as one such victim. A student at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Zach was summarily fired from his job of two and a half years at Student Technology Services, an organization he helped build. The letters he and his school received accusing him of using school servers for illegal activities were enough to trample this student's rights and reputation in favor of some perverse idea of political "damage control." They should be more concerned with controlling the damage done to their student's academic freedom and civil liberties than satisfying the whims of Jack Valenti and the MPAA. Sadly, Zach is not alone. A student from California State University at Fresno wrote in to report that he had to take down his school-hosted DeCSS mirror and that the MPAA requested that he be fired from his school employment. (Fortunately, he wasn't fired).

We first took a stand in the DVD battle back in November, when the first cease and desist letters were being sent out. We joined in the mirroring campaign to lend our support to those who had been subjected to hollow threats and harassment from the DVD industry, but were forced into compliance due to circumstances beyond their control. They knew they were right, they knew they could win, but they lacked the resources to stand up for their convictions. As evidenced above, that fight is ongoing. Our modest mirror list has grown substantially and continues to grow, despite mirrors being removed from time to time. The success of the DeCSS mirroring campaign demonstrates the futility of attempts to suppress free speech on the Internet. It is distributed hosting at its most basic and a proven defense from censorship. Make no mistake, DeCSS is out there, it can never be eradicated. Not only will DeCSS be preserved regardless of whether there are any mirrors, the tyrannical actions of the MPAA have ensured that it will live on forever in history, law books, and all the communities it has effected.

Over the past week the Motion Picture Association of America has intensified its efforts to bully and harass individual Internet users by sending out a new series of email threats. Using little more than bluff and bluster they've also managed in recent weeks to shut down countless websites, convince employers to fire employees, and get schools to take disciplinary actions against students for doing little more than taking part in an act of solidarity on their private homepages.

John Young, who maintains the Cryptome, is one of the hundreds of John Doe defendants in the California DVD case. In addition to a copy of DeCSS, Young published a copy of the now-infamous Hoy Declaration, in which the DVD Copy Control Association inadvertently included a copy of the very information they were trying to suppress in public court filings. He was among the first to bear the brunt of a wave of cease and desist letters for posting the source code to DeCSS. The letter reads in part:

The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California also recently granted a preliminary Injunction against the Internet posting of DeCSS.

If you are bound by an injunction, maintaining the DeCSS utility on your system or network violates the above injunction[s] and risks court sanctions for contempt.

Over the past week, we have received numerous reports of this threatening letter being sent to web site owners worldwide. It appears the MPAA is simply going down the list of mirrored sites and sending a letter to everybody.

Geography and national sovereignty are clearly foreign concepts to this multinational corporation. The effects of globalization seem to have impaired their faculties more than previously thought. They proceeded to send similar letters to people all over the world. Tom Vogt, also named as a defendant in the California case, resides in Germany. The letter the MPAA sent him insisting that he comply with the California injunction, refers to the preliminary draft of an unratified convention. That's right, the best they could do was threaten him with an unsigned treaty.

Earlier this month Grant Bayley received a cease and desist letter for hosting DeCSS on his webpage for the Australian 2600 meeting. Both Bayley and the server are located in Australia. As expressed in the meeting guidelines, 2600 meetings are organized on their own, anyone can start one, and they are pretty much autonomous. According to an Australian journalist who spoke with the chief counsel for the MPAA, 2600 Australia is being singled out simply because of its name. Presumably this is also why they chose to go after A.Sleep, operator of the Connecticut 2600 meeting's webpage in his very own federal lawsuit. One can only imagine what the MPAA must be thinking.

In an age where anyone is capable of exercising free speech to mass audiences via the Internet, there is a disturbing trend that this freedom is limited not by the strength of one's convictions nor one's access to technology. Rather it is dependant on the will and resources of one's Internet Service Provider. It is common for ISPs to cancel accounts or remove content at the first hints of any controversy. It didn't take long for big business to figure this out and they've been exploiting lawsuit-fearing ISPs ever since. One can hardly blame the average ISP for bowing to such impressive cease and desist letters. Often they're barely breaking even as it is, and nuking one $10 a month webpage is a simple business decision when being threatened with a million dollar lawsuit.

What's far more troubling is the ease in which traditional safe havens for free expression, like universities and other academic institutions, are willing to sell out their students. Zach Karpinski stands out as one such victim. A student at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Zach was summarily fired from his job of two and a half years at Student Technology Services, an organization he helped build. The letters he and his school received accusing him of using school servers for illegal activities were enough to trample this student's rights and reputation in favor of some perverse idea of political "damage control." They should be more concerned with controlling the damage done to their student's academic freedom and civil liberties than satisfying the whims of Jack Valenti and the MPAA. Sadly, Zach is not alone. A student from California State University at Fresno wrote in to report that he had to take down his school-hosted DeCSS mirror and that the MPAA requested that he be fired from his school employment. (Fortunately, he wasn't fired).

We first took a stand in the DVD battle back in November, when the first cease and desist letters were being sent out. We joined in the mirroring campaign to lend our support to those who had been subjected to hollow threats and harassment from the DVD industry, but were forced into compliance due to circumstances beyond their control. They knew they were right, they knew they could win, but they lacked the resources to stand up for their convictions. As evidenced above, that fight is ongoing. Our modest mirror list has grown substantially and continues to grow, despite mirrors being removed from time to time. The success of the DeCSS mirroring campaign demonstrates the futility of attempts to suppress free speech on the Internet. It is distributed hosting at its most basic and a proven defense from censorship. Make no mistake, DeCSS is out there, it can never be eradicated. Not only will DeCSS be preserved regardless of whether there are any mirrors, the tyrannical actions of the MPAA have ensured that it will live on forever in history, law books, and all the communities it has effected.

• S2105 would make it a crime to tamper with identification codes put in place by manufacturers. With a Pentium, this law would make it a crime to use the disable function. Probably end result: losses for Pentium and anyone else who uses ID codes.
• Online music laws humor:
  • We have to pay you?
  • And we can only play the song how often?
  • So you're limiting how much we can pay you?
  • And you encouraging us to play your competition?
  • Ok. Let's play some decent music, screw the labels.
• When I think of how much money the DVD industry has saved me, I can't thank them enough.
• The final result. There will, in my opinion, be three nets.
  • The first network is for those people who currently live off of and feed these corporations. The people who want their music fed to them. Hopefully they'll take over the new AOL.
  • The second network will be for the theives and pirates. Those who want what the megacorps put out and think they shouldn't have to pay. Unfortunately, I think they'll take Freenet as well.
  • The final net will be where it always was, out in the public and hard to find. It will be the college radio stations and the small bars like the old el&gee club I used to frequent. It will resemble the way things used to be here, where some .plan or .project pointed you to a cool gopher file somewhere.
  The truth is, the corporations can sue us only as long as we buy their stuff. Once we realize that it's just glitter without substance, we're free from them.

If I own a CD, I can do anything I please with it, short of redistributing the music. ... All of this is legal, provided I own the CDs that are the source material for the MP3s. It is no different than recording a CD onto a cassette tape so that you can listen to it in an old Walkman.

You would think so. For example, you would also think that if you legally purchased a DVD for your own private home use, you would have the right to operate that DVD with a computer running Linux, even if you have to write some software to support it. That makes sense, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, you do not have the right to do any of these things. Almost no forms of copying are still considered "fair use." If you access the data on the disc in just about any way that the publisher doesn't specifically authorize, you have infringed on their copyright.

See the Slashdot story on the DeCSS injunction, or the text of the judge's ruling itself.

And it seems that France in particular has a taste for the fantastic. Microsoft is the NSA's largest customer, and IBM was forced into using DOS by the government?

France allegedly has its own Echelon, and no doubt that the UK does also. So if they're doing it themselves, why are they so pissed at the US?

I'd post these comments on PDJ, but we're currently swamped with slashdot hits, so I figgered I'd do it here:

1. Yes, it's silly. Yes, it's a joke. But humor is one of the biggest assets of the freedom-loving community. Let's use it wisely.
2. Wide distribution of DeCSS *may* be a minor nuisance for "good" people looking for DeCSS. Note, however, that the DVD-CCA has done much, MUCH worse damage by shutting down sites with DeCSS and sites that link to sites with DeCSS. The problem of having to sift through false DeCSS's is a drop in the bucket by comparison.
3. Also remember that someone who's looking for DeCSS just to use it only needs to find *one* copy. Even if they get a few false positives, they will eventually find a real one. However, someone with a legal agenda will be looking for ALL copies. Having thousands of decoys will make their hunt much more difficult.
4. If you're really worried about making it easier for "good" people to find DeCSS, mirror it! Or at least link to the excellent meta-site at dvd-copy.com.
5. Someone smart will be able to find the "real" DeCSS using file sizes and hashes. Fine! Let's make them work harder. Also, the person who does that coding (they'll probably use Free Software like perl to get it done) should think long and hard about it. Shame on geeks who sell out their brothers to The Man!
6. I do not weep for Jack Valenti and the MPAA. They already mentioned the DeCSS Distribution Contest in legal filings. I'm sorry if we're making it hard to sue the Internet. Maybe the next industry cartel with this idea will think twice about it.
7. If you can't get into Pigdog Journal, try one of these mirror sites:
   • Crackmonkey
   • Cryptome
   • Pottymouth
   • ZGP

Plaintiffs' sole claim is for violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. They contend that plaintiffs' posting of DeCSS violates Section 1201(a)(2) of the statute, which prohibits unauthorized offering of products that circumvent technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works.

http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-3-mo.htm

9 February 2000:

See responses to letter: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-ccd2.htm

7 February 2000

From: "mpaa.23" <mpaa.23@gateway.net>
To: <jya@pipeline.com>
Subject: MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 12:51:43 -0800

[No message]

[Attachment] cryptome.org

[attachment cryptome.org; original in .doc format]

MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 15503 VENTURA BOULEVARD ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436

UNITED STATES PHONE: (818) 728-8127
Email: MPAA.23@Gateway.net
Anti-Piracy Operations

Cryptome
John Young
251 West 89th Street
New York, NY 10024
jya@pipeline.com

Date: February 4, 2000

RE: Illegal Provision of DeCSS/Circumvention Device

Site/URL: cryptome.org

Dear John Young: The Motion Picture Association of America is authorized to act on behalf of the following copyright owners: Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
Disney Enterprises, Inc.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
Paramount Pictures Corporation
TriStar Pictures, Inc.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
United Artists Pictures, Inc.
United Artists Corporation
Universal City Studios, Inc.
Warner Bros., a Division of
Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.

We have knowledge that the above-referenced Internet site is providing a circumvention device commonly known as DeCSS. DeCSS is a software utility that decrypts or unscrambles the contents of DVDs (consisting of copyrighted motion pictures) or otherwise circumvents the protection afforded by the Contents Scramble System (CSS) and permits the copying of the DVD contents and/or any portion thereof. As such, DeCSS is an unlawful circumvention device within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2),(3). Providing or offering DeCSS to the public on your system or network violates the provisions of 1201(a)(2) which prohibits the "manufacturing, importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking" in an unlawful circumvention device.

On January 20, 2000, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting the Internet posting or other provision of DeCSS, having found that DeCSS was a prohibited circumvention device within the meaning of 1201(a)(2) and that the offering, providing or trafficking of DeCSS on the Internet violated 1201(a)(2). That court thus enjoined:

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 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. . .

The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California also recently granted a Preliminary Injunction against the Internet posting of DeCSS.

If you are bound by an injunction, maintaining the DeCSS utility on your system or network violates the above injunction[s] and risks court sanctions for contempt.

We hereby demand that you:

1. take appropriate steps to cause immediate removal of DeCSS from the above identified URL, along with such other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to suspend this illegal activity;

2. provide appropriate notice to the subscriber or account holder responsible for the presence of DeCSS on your system or network, advising him/her of the contents of this notice and directing that person to contact the undersigned immediately at the e-mail address provided above;

3. advise us of the name and physical address of the person operating this site; and

4. maintain, and take whatever steps are necessary to prevent the destruction of, all records, including electronic records, in your possession or control respecting this URL, account holder or subscriber.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your immediate response is requested.

The information in this notification is accurate, and we declare, under penalty of perjury, that the Motion Picture Association of America is authorized to act on behalf of the owner[s] of exclusive rights described above.

Should you have any questions, please contact us at the above listed address.

Respectfully,

The Motion Picture Association of America

Yes indeed! I saw the parallels to the DVD CCA case right away. Check out this juicy quote from the ruling:

Page 1721: "Sony understandably seeks control over the market for devices that play games Sony produces or licenses. The copyright law, however, does not confer such a monopoly."

Replace Sony with MPAA and games with movies, and you can see how this might be applicable.

What I found more interesting was the judge's position towards use of the BIOS. He said that observing the BIOS in action in order to reverse-engineer a compatible product in the name of competition was a fair (and protected) use of the original product, and so any product they developed is OK, and that any 'intermediate' copies of the BIOS they might have made were irrelevant, so long as no code from the original Sony BIOS ended up in the finished product.

Does that mean player keys extracted from a player while it's working or using captured decoded video from a player could also be considered fair use of the player? I think once the courts realize that the real issue here is control of the players, then it'll practically be over. They'll axe the suits and OK competitive players, because it will be seen as a pro-commerce decision. It increases the number of players in the market, which will increase the sale of movies in the market, instead of supplying the DVDCCA and MPAA with an illegal monopoly that is NOT allowable under copyright law.

The fact that the Copyright Office is reviewing the law and its possible impact is also encouraging. Go to Cryptome for links on how to submit comments to the Copyright Office on the impact of the DMCA, if you've got a grasp on the issue and something to say. ----

IntellectualCapital has on of the most even-handed accounts of the DeCSS controversy and the DMCA that I've seen in the mainstream media: http://ic.voxcap.com/issues/issue34 3/item8106.asp

The author concludes, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act "effectively gave [copyright] owners the power to write their own intellectual-property statutes." This is exactly what the MPAA is trying to do. The DMCA effectively removes fair use by making it a crime to circumvent access control even if you would normally have a legal fair use right to access the material.

Defating this will not be easy. In the MPAA suit in New York, Judge Kaplan has already decided in his Memorandum Opinion that fair use isn't even an issue the court will address:
Finally, defendants claim that they are engaged in a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.27 They are mistaken.

Section 107 of the Act provides in critical part that certain uses of copyrighted works that otherwise would be wrongful are "not . . . infringement[s] of copyright.''28 Defendants, however, are not here sued for copyright infringement.

Very frightening stuff - let the media and your representatives know what this debate is about!

One problem is that Bernstein is not binding on this court. In fact, it may be rendered moot.

The 9th Circuit was reviewing Patel's ruling en banc, but they just pushed it back down to the original panel to be reconsidered in light of the new relaxed encryption export regulations.

Here's the most recent update from news.com and basically the same info from cryptome.org.
EFF has not updated their collection of Bernstein issues with this yet.

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.

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.

THE COURT: Is anybody trying to restrain the posting alone of programmer's notes without the source code, the executable instructions?

Mr. Gold?

MR. GOLD: No. THE COURT: No. Let's move on.

Hello? If that's not an invitation to document every last aspect of DVDs, I don't know what is. Document, document, document. With enough documentation, the piracy aspect falls to shreds. Pirates would have more than enough documentation to do it themselves...

First of all, the license fee is not $5000. In fact, we don't know what the license fee is, because DVD CCA refuses to disclose that information to parties they don't regard as "credible."

Second: Taking apart your lawfully obtained, personal property and figuring out how it works is perfectly lawful and ethical. Period. Shrinkwrap "licenses" are monsterously unethical and have no legal force. No amount of posturing or whining by wealthy media executives will change this.

Finally, I would urge you to read the Hoy Reply document, which contains as Exhibit B the full text of DVD CCA's contract. I think you'll agree that such terms as they demand are an anathema to the Open Source ethic.

Schwab

The U.S. has released information on the availability of some interesting patents. One of them happens to be "A Quantum Key Distribution System for encryption and authentication." Worth checking out.

Meanwhile, there's a kid and his family in Norway who need help putting on a legal defense.
If you can find a way to contribute $ directly to their defense, please help out. If anybody has a link to a legit legal fund that is backing the Johansens, please post it here on Slashdot.
There is also the EFF, which is funneling donations to the defense of the stateside OpenDVD posters. Contribute by joining with a donation. You can contribute a little by just buying an OpenDVD T-shirt at Copyleft.net.
There is also this petition circulated by Norway's Linuxguide which is accepting signatures from around the world in protest of the way Norwegian authorities are bringing a patently false prosecution against Jon and his father on behalf of Hollywood's powerful film cartel, the MPAA. By this time tomorrow there could ~15,000 signers!

Meanwhile, get the code, preferably in the form of the now sealed babbling of the MPAA's own President, John J. Hoy and email it to as many people as you can. That's right, spam them with DeCSS to show you care. Be sure to send it to reporters for national news organizations. Sure, they can easily have already seen it, but they need to know that everybody else has too, and that's a story! That's the story, really. There is no better way to demonstrate the inappropriateness of laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright than by showing how unnaturally they impede the free flow of informnation, and that is shown by how perfectly easy and natural it is for the information to flow.

One of the primary things Jon is accused of is the violation of Xing's EULA(End User Licenceing Agreement). It clearly states in the agreeement that by using/installing the program you agree not to reverse engineer. Are EULAs leagal? The law veries from state to state and country to country. What is reveling is if you look at Jon J Hoy's deposition The DVD CCA has come up with direct quotes from the defendents in the CA case that they knowingly and willingly ignored and violated federal law. Reading through this document I find that the plantifs have a superior technical case under current laws. However the moral & constitional questions that this case raises are still very much open to debate. I am willing to bet that the jeudges will find in the favor of the plantifs in both New York and California and then fast track the appeals to the supreme court.

No need to require source code.
According to US national newspaper cn-crypto.htm it has to be Chinese software - so they already have the source (Oh, well - this is communism - don't forget, with orgainzed party members in highest post of every company - nobody can keep a secret before the party).

All they reqire is just every private key, name of its owner, his e-mail address, address and phone number. No more.


Alegedly, this is not trying to crack on independent media - may I remind - there aint no such thing in China. This is against dissidents and members of the banned sect Falun Dafa, who dare to talk together without their government hearing it !

Petrus.

Yes, it was in place, but it was not perfect enough. They could prosecute only those, who already had their stuff posted. All media in China had are state controlled, except for the Internet. They are learning handle that. If everybody could tell the truth about their wonderful government, it would soon damage their bright communist futures.

There is another show of Chinese tight control on internet in cn-crypto.htm, where eevrybody within China has to give the government key to they encrypiton, even foreign companies.

In a different vein, I have what I think is an important question related to the public documentation part 'though: If we downloaded the "exhibit a", part of the document while it was "open" (which is the DeCSS source in question), and then they seal it, what is the legal status of those copies we downloaded?

The closest analogy I can think of is this: if I went to the courthouse and made xerox copies of a public document which was later "sealed" by the court, would I somehow be in violation of the law? If so, it seems like it would be an "ex post facto" law (a law passed making a crime out of an act which had not previously been legislated against). At least in the US of A, "ex post facto" prosecution is against our constitutional rights. IANAL and this has me very very concerned.

when you graduate from college you'll inevitably have more rights

Anyway, so far, pretty much each move by the court seems appropriate to me. Preliminary injunction? It's probably the right thing to do. Now, I'm not sure what MP3s have to do with it, but I think I know why you say the biggest argument is about individual freedom. It seems to me the case is about the following:

The DVD-CCA filed a suit based on the fact that the CSS was stolen. Was it? That's for the court to decide, apparently. The DVD-CCA says they are the sole licenser of the CSS, but does that give them certain rights/controls over individuals who have not entered into license agreements with them? If the case sets the precedent that I don't have the freedom to not enter a license agreement that I've never seen with a party I want no business with and maybe have never heard of; then, yes, I'd certainly say this is about individual freedom.

What I find repugnant, on both sides, is the heated way the point is obscured. The DVD-CCA in their original filing give three disrespectful /.-style quotes in the very introduction of the application! It's as if the court is expected to find someone guilty of a crime because they are impolite! "Here's the kind of thing the defendants say. Don't you just want to stick it to them, superior court of California?" Furthermore, their paper is littered with discussion of piracy (no evidence of such was even submitted, as far as I can tell) of the hypothetically underlying intellectual property (the MPA's business.)

On this side of the issue, it seems that the DVD-CCA should be screwed because of one of the following reasons:

• It is a big, rich orginization and therefore symbolizes ENEMY, who naturally should be fucked. We are at war, no?
• They encoded something that is crackable (and therefore ought to be cracked) What the hell did they expect?
• They havn't convinced a Linux vendor to buy a CSS license so we can watch Matrix on our little computer screen. Goddamn Microsoft! They're in league with the devil.

It's hopeless that the press can get it right. I hope the court can be more clear-headed.

They haven't figured it out yet, those lusers in suits.

I'm going to put up a prominent link to this on my personal web site and just hope they try to tell me to remove a link to a Public Record.

It seems that anyone can view the DeCSS source code here: http://cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm
Just scroll down to view it

Just a thought... If everyone created mirrors of the court docs then you couldn't get in trouble for mirroring the source, right? I mean, they are public documents...

Of course, we would want a Real Big Link at the top pointing to the DeCSS source... ;)

It seems quite likely that you are right, and that the document is being distributed in breach of a court seal.

As evidence, read the disclaimer on the cryptome.org site:

• Caution: It may be illegal for California and New York residents to download the file above. Before downloading read the contents below. Have lawyer on hand. Or say fuck it and enjoy the forbidden fruit of intellectual censorship. Rest of world is free to grab it, for now.

Morever, the same document is available from the EFF, except it is missing the Appendices which included the DeCSS code. Could that be because those Appendices are ... under seal?

Indeed, read the blurb at http://cryptome.org/

• Caution: It may be illegal for California and New York residents to download the file above. Before downloading read the contents below. Have lawyer on hand. Or say fuck it and enjoy the forbidden fruit of intellectual censorship. Rest of world is free to grab it, for now.

I don't know what this person is thinking. If they are distributing a sealed court document, it's not just California and New York where they can get in trouble.

Incidentally, the same document is available at the EFF's site, but it's missing the Appendices with the DeCSS code. Could it be because those Appendices are ... sealed?

dvd-hoy-reply.htm + DVD CCA: Reply Declaration of John J. Hoy January 22, 2000 Caution: It may be illegal for California and New York residents to download the file above. Before downloading read the contents below. Have lawyer on hand. Or say fuck it and enjoy the forbidden fruit of intellectual censorship. Rest of world is free to grab it, for now.

dvd-hoy-reply.htm + DVD CCA: Reply Declaration of John J. Hoy January 22, 2000 Caution: It may be illegal for California and New York residents to download the file above. Before downloading read the contents below. Have lawyer on hand. Or say fuck it and enjoy the forbidden fruit of intellectual censorship. Rest of world is free to grab it, for now.

I sincerely doubt that the DVD CCA or MPAA lawyers are so stupid as to allow unsealed CSS source into open court records. I looked at the site where the story came from and all I can suggest is that the people who posted it are misinformed

Did you READ the blurb above, or just spout off? I would think that closed court records would not be publically available on the internet. In fact, if someone one posted the court records containing the CSS source, I would have to say that either someone is about to be in big trouble, or the court records in question are indeed UNSEALED .

In fact, I would say that this is the whole FREAKING POINT OF THIS STORY ON SLASHDOT!

Thank you, please drive through.

I sincerely doubt that the DVD CCA or MPAA lawyers are so stupid as to allow unsealed CSS source into open court records. I looked at the site where the story came from and all I can suggest is that the people who posted it are misinformed

Did you READ the blurb above, or just spout off? I would think that closed court records would not be publically available on the internet. In fact, if someone one posted the court records containing the CSS source, I would have to say that either someone is about to be in big trouble, or the court records in question are indeed UNSEALED .

In fact, I would say that this is the whole FREAKING POINT OF THIS STORY ON SLASHDOT!

Thank you, please drive through.

I sincerely doubt that the DVD CCA or MPAA lawyers are so stupid as to allow unsealed CSS source into open court records. I looked at the site where the story came from and all I can suggest is that the people who posted it are misinformed

Did you READ the blurb above, or just spout off? I would think that closed court records would not be publically available on the internet. In fact, if someone one posted the court records containing the CSS source, I would have to say that either someone is about to be in big trouble, or the court records in question are indeed UNSEALED .

In fact, I would say that this is the whole FREAKING POINT OF THIS STORY ON SLASHDOT!

Thank you, please drive through.

I sincerely doubt that the DVD CCA or MPAA lawyers are so stupid as to allow unsealed CSS source into open court records. I looked at the site where the story came from and all I can suggest is that the people who posted it are misinformed

Did you READ the blurb above, or just spout off? I would think that closed court records would not be publically available on the internet. In fact, if someone one posted the court records containing the CSS source, I would have to say that either someone is about to be in big trouble, or the court records in question are indeed UNSEALED .

In fact, I would say that this is the whole FREAKING POINT OF THIS STORY ON SLASHDOT!

Thank you, please drive through.

I sincerely doubt that the DVD CCA or MPAA lawyers are so stupid as to allow unsealed CSS source into open court records. I looked at the site where the story came from and all I can suggest is that the people who posted it are misinformed

Did you READ the blurb above, or just spout off? I would think that closed court records would not be publically available on the internet. In fact, if someone one posted the court records containing the CSS source, I would have to say that either someone is about to be in big trouble, or the court records in question are indeed UNSEALED .

In fact, I would say that this is the whole FREAKING POINT OF THIS STORY ON SLASHDOT!

Thank you, please drive through.

I sincerely doubt that the DVD CCA or MPAA lawyers are so stupid as to allow unsealed CSS source into open court records. I looked at the site where the story came from and all I can suggest is that the people who posted it are misinformed

Did you READ the blurb above, or just spout off? I would think that closed court records would not be publically available on the internet. In fact, if someone one posted the court records containing the CSS source, I would have to say that either someone is about to be in big trouble, or the court records in question are indeed UNSEALED .

In fact, I would say that this is the whole FREAKING POINT OF THIS STORY ON SLASHDOT!

Thank you, please drive through.

1) It doesen't look (to me) like this is legally "public" yet. The cryptome page says that the document is based on hardcopy from an anonymous source. Normally (if I remember from my time as a cop beat reporter way back when) all the documents in a civil case only become public at the end of the trial, if there is one, and still may not be completely released then.

This is important as the argument that the judge is somewhat buying from DVD CAA so far is that, while the code has already been posted a lot of places, the information came from an illegitimate source that should have known better, and was posted by persons who should have known that this was not public information. If this is an otherwise confidential court document, posting it does not defeat trade secret protection for DVD any more than any other posting has.

If this is actually a confidential court document, whoever released it doesn't just have DVD CAA to worry about, they should be consulting a lawyer on what the civil contempt rules are in California.

2) FOIA is no help. The federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not apply here at all. "The federal FOIA does not, however, provide access to records held by state or local government agencies, or by private businesses or individuals." This is a civil filing in a state (California) court.

The plantiffs included it in their declaration: http://cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm

While the BXA consulted the computing industry in order to revise and liberalize export regulations, the UK has done the exact opposite. It appears they flat out ISPs when introducing this nasty piece of legislation, which tightens export controls and INTRODUCE EMAIL WIRE TAPPING.

It's archived at John Young's cypherpunks archive, Cryptome.

I agree, however, that a message to a mailing list hardly makes for a reliable news source.

(The NT Security article also neglects to mention this as the information source - somebody please correct me if there's additional corraborating evidence out there.)

We put it up at John Young [who else) ist the US. Mirror. Futurezone experienced some datbase related problems recently. 'twas not the Slashdot effect
-e