Slashdot Mirror
Pavlovich Jurisdictional Challenge Denied
Appellate Court Issues Precedent Setting Ruling in Cyber-Jurisdiction ruling
The Sixth District Court of Appeals has issued its ruling in the jurisdictional case filed by Indiana student Matt Pavlovich, a foreign defendant in the California DVD case. You may recall that Pavlovich had moved the trial court to dismiss him from the main DVD action due to lack of jurisdiction. When the trial court denied his motion, Pavlovich filed a petition for Writ of Mandate with the Court of Appeals - that court summarily denied his petition. Pavlovich then turned to the Supreme Court for relief by way of a Petition for Review. In a rare move, all seven justices of the Supreme Court unanimously granted review and sent the matter back to the Court of Appeals with instructions that they re-consider the case. Following additional filings and oral arguments, today the Court of Appeals issued a published, written opinion again denying Pavlovich's petition. The Court's order will be available on our web site at www.legal.wao.com shortly, and is also accessible through the Court of Appeal's site.
Today's opinion dramatically increases the jurisdictional reach of California's court system, creating nearly limitless jurisdiction over internet disputes involving the motion picture industry, the technology industry, and any other industry reputed to exist in California. Because the exercise of jurisdiction is fundamentally a question of state power, we contend that this type of hyper-extension of California's long-arm statute violates the Constitutional safeguards found within the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Because the decision affects the Constitutional Rights of U.S. Citizens everywhere, we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will again grant review of the Appellate Court's decision.
The underlying California Case:
Pavlovich, along with Andrew Bunner and some 500 other individual defendants, have been targeted by the Motion Picture Industry trade group DVD CCA in the California case. DVD CCA alleges that the defendants, who allegedly found the DeCSS information on the World Wide Web and then republished it, may not continue to publish the information based on California's Uniform Trade Secret's Act. Bunner claims that, like any other innocent republisher of information, he has a constitutionally protected right to publish this particular information and is not liable under the UTSA. Bunner, along with Amicus briefs from the prestigious IEEE and ACIS groups, also argues that the information he republished was properly and permissibly reverse-engineered and as such cannot be enjoined under the UTSA. In his papers, Bunner explains that Reverse-Engineering, along with the publication of technical discoveries, has long been a mainstay of innovation and evolution in the field of high-technology. Enjoining the publication of technical information, and stopping permissible reverse-engineering, would necessarily empower entities to use technologies like CSS to manipulate markets and bar consumer protections.
NEW YORK CASE:
The New York case continues through the appellate process. Appellants presented oral arguments before the appeals court and have recently responded to a number of written questions posed by the court. Additional resources are available at www.eff.org.
Resources:
HS Law Group's web site with information about the DeCSS cases:www.legal.wao.com
http://www.cryptome.org- tends to get the most recent filings fairly quickly
EFF Archive for DVD-CCA Cal. trade secret case: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/
EFF's DVD Archive: http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/DVD/
Allonn E. Levy, Esq.
HS LAW GROUP a.p.c.
210 N. Fourth St. Fourth Fl.
San Jose, CA 95112
Michael is pissed off the court sees the concept of open source incorrectly
This is the guy that censored censorware.org
Way to be hypocritical michael.
BTW - This should be -1 by the time you read it (michael is pretty big on modding his own posts, which is also hypocritical of the "YRO" editor).
you can't deny this is sexy
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
g g
o / \ \ / \ o
a| | \ | | a
t| `. | | : t
s` | | \| | s
e \ | / / \\\ --__ \\ : e
x \ \/ _--~~ ~--__| \ | x
* \ \_-~ ~-_\ | *
g \_ \ _.--------.______\| | g
o \ \______// _ ___ _ (_(__> \ | o
a \ . C ___) ______ (_(____> | / a
t
s /
e | ( _C_____)\______/
x | \ |__ \\_________// (__/ | x
* | \ \____) `---- --' | *
g | \_ ___\
o | / | | \ | o
a | | / \ \ | a
t | / / | | \ |t
s | / / \__/\___/ | |s
e | / / | | | |e
x | | | | | |x
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
Like this one.
Posted AC because I'm not a karma whore.
9.That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10.For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11.For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12.For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13.For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14.How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15.And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16.But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17.So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18.But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. 19.But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. 20.But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. 21.But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
Secondly, the court did the right thing in declaring his actions illegal. It is not the job of the courts to make the laws (as any first year poli-sci major, or, for that matter, almost anyone who's taken US History will tell you). The job of the courts is to enforce the laws, and under the DMCA, the actions of Mr. Pavlovich were unquestionably illegal.
People, if you really hate the DMCA, you should write your congressional representative. What you shouldn't do is sit around on a weblog complaining about how the courts are crooked when they are really just doing their job. Inaction gets you nothing.
Lastly, as anyone who is familiar with the actions and works of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or Thoreau knows, civil disobedience does not come without a price. If you aren't willing to take the punishment for standing up against unjust laws, then you really shouldn't be breaking the law in the first place. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Is your company running tools written by ma
than hijacking a well-known censorware website over a stupid conflict of egos? Well, michael, is it?