Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Out Of State DeCSS Defendants Challenge Jurisdiction

Posted by michael on from the can't-touch-this dept.

cthugha writes: "It seems that the anti-DeCSS case in California has suffered a setback, with the California Supreme Court questioning why one of the defendants who is not a California resident should be part of the case. Since 18 of the 21 defendants in the case are not residents of California, this looks like the beginning of the end for most of them. Even so, this seems to be only a minor legal hurdle; what's to stop the relevant bad guys from filing suit in the defendants' respective states? C|NET article here." This is exactly right, but the flip side is that it's probably too much hassle to go after everyone individually in their own state or country.

12 comments

  1. Firing shots across the bow by sporktoast · · Score: 2

    it's probably too much hassle to go after everyone individually in their own state or country.

    Country, maybe. State, definitely not.

    Legal proceedings like this are as much about "sending a message" (which sounds so much more defensible than "trying to create a chilling effect") as they are about punishing specific offenders. How deeply will that message resound if it seems to have an unspoken "only if you live in California" appended to it?

    While it would be an additional effort for [MPAA, RIAA, LMNOP] to file against multiple defendents in multiple states, it would be worth it to them because it proves that they are serious and even suggests that they are indefatigable. Other countries maybe be a bit of a reach. The difference in legal systems is larger in that case, so lawsuits-as-an-offensive-weapon may not be as feasible a strategy. They may still repeat their attempts to get foreign law enforcement to do some dirty work for them.

    --
    In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
    1. Re:Firing shots across the bow by Nater · · Score: 2

      While it would be an additional effort for [MPAA, RIAA, LMNOP] to file against multiple defendents in multiple states, it would be worth it to them because it proves that they are serious and even suggests that they are indefatigable.

      And if the different courts fall on different sides of the issue, then what? If one of the losing defendants appeals federally, those other decisions will definitely be a factor. Played the right way, it could be one factor that gets the DMCA repealed.

      Mildly offtopic, can a state court overturn a federal law?

      --

      I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
      "We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer

  2. Plus... by Muggins+the+Mad · · Score: 1


    If tried in different states/countries, it seems really quite unlikely that they'll all be found guilty! If what they're being accused of is even a crime in some places...

    - Muggins The Mad

  3. Fighting back! by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 3
    That is why people must fight back against absuive lawsuits!

    If a few companies get hit with large judgments for this type of behavior, they will stop it. Or, the companies will think long and hard before using a lawsuit to silence people.

    This ruling may have a larger impact than only in California. Since internet jurisdiction is unsettled, other courts may look to this for guidance.

    --
    Fight Spammers!
  4. Glad a German wasn't the judge by PyRoNeRd · · Score: 2
    The German high court has decided in a case against an Australian (but German born) denier that German laws apply everywhere in the world when the net is involved and that foreigners can be prosecuted in Germany if they put information on the net that is illegal there.

    This CNN article reports on the verdict.

    1. Re:Glad a German wasn't the judge by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard of. How do they intend to compel the Aussie to go to Germany to stand trial? I guess it goes to show that wacky court rulings are not limited to the US.

      --

      Constitutionally Correct

    2. Re:Glad a German wasn't the judge by PyRoNeRd · · Score: 2
      In an other article (not in English) about this case the German prosecuter said that it would be difficult to get countries like the USA to extradite their citizens to Germany, and that an international treaty was the only way to deal with right wing activities on the internet.

      Clearly the Germans now hunt down the Nazi's but they still similar methods to those of the old Nazi's by imposing their laws on the rest of the world.

      Meanwhile it would be best for racist webmasters not to set foot in Germany or travel to any country with an extradition treaty with Germany as the penalties for incitement to racial hatred and defemation of the dead are quite high there (10-12 years in prison).

      The same applies for Scientologist webmasters as the Church of Scientology is considered to be an "enemy of the constitution" by the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, the government organisation that fights political and social movements that "threaten the democracy and the constitution".

    3. Re:Glad a German wasn't the judge by _xen · · Score: 2
      That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard of.

      You just don't get out enough. :)

      Though I have not read the judgement, I understand that the ruling merely reverses the lower court's misconception that the location of the server placed the matter outside the court's jurisdicition (now that would be ludicrous), it is enought that the message is broadcast to Germans in Germany.

      How do they intend to compel the Aussie to go to Germany to stand trial?

      The usual way would be to issue a request for extradition. However, the double-criminality rule (ie that the crime must exist both in the requesting and the extradting state), which I believe forms part of the law of Australia, would seem to render extradition unlikely. One does not imagine that the offence Tobin (aka Toebin) is being charged with is a crime in Australia. Indeed his is arguably the kind of political communication which is afforded protection by the Australian Constitution.

      I doubt, however, whether the German court entertained the slightest concern about how or if Tobin would be brought back to stand trial. It is the more important question, regarding the internet and the jurisdiction of German courts, that is being addressed here.

      I guess it goes to show that wacky court rulings are not limited to the US. ?

      Indeed, "wacky" rulings are not a monopoly of the US courts. I'm sure you'll find though, that such rulings are far more common in the (mis)conceptions of lay commentators, than in any actual justice system.

    4. Re:Glad a German wasn't the judge by Rigid_Glitch · · Score: 1

      Political persecution and intolerance continues to thrive in the good old fatherland. Funny how some things NEVER change.
      Sad to say most Germans fail to grasp the irony.
      Now that everyone's eyeballs are on the internet, the blood-sucking lawyers (worldwide) are extending their tentacles...
      Freedom of speech? What's that?

    5. Re:Glad a German wasn't the judge by _xen · · Score: 1
      Political persecution and intolerance continues to thrive in the good old fatherland. ... Freedom of speech? What's that?

      A value which the US, in practically imposing a constitution on the Federal Republic after the war, apparently did not regard as being of greater importance than the prevention of nazi recidivism.

  5. The other important point... by Masem · · Score: 2
    Beside the state boundary thing, the judge's ruling questions why anyone who simply distributed the tool is being sued. Which means that the judge understands that the primary use of decss is NOT to pirate movies, and gives the defendents a much stronger case (as only one person could then be allegedly sued) that free speech trumps DMCA.

    DeCSS is going to the SC, definitely, because of this.

    --
    "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
    "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
  6. They got nothin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Q: If it is as easy as some on this forum say to prosecute those in other states for DeCSS, then why is the MPAA threatening mirrors with precident set in a New York court?

    A: Because it would be way too expensive to fight this in all these different jurisdictions. Why do that when a C&D based on the NY ruling will suffice?

    Also, there is a reason why the MPAA filed suit in NY and California. These two areas are sympathetic to the entertainment industry. There is no way in hell they are going to come down to, oh, say Dallas and try to push these claims. It's all about getting a court venue that will be sympathetic to your argument. It's also about court jurisdiction. In this case, the Calif. Supreme Court is about to (rightfully!) rule that private non-resident citizens, not involved in business in the state, cannot be brought up on Civil torts laws in a state in which they do not reside.

    This is good for the cause. If the MPAA really wants to nail these people, they will have to file in courts that have jurisdiction (which will costs a ton of $$$). 20 defendants gets good copy. 3 defendants page 5 of the "technology" section.

    IAAL.