Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court to Take Up DeCSS Case
geekee writes "CNET has posted an article claiming the US Supreme Court will take up a 1999 case involving individuals posting DeCSS on web sites based in the US. In November, the California Supreme Court had ruled that Matthew Pavlovitch could not be sued in CA since he's not a CA resident 'with no substantial contact with California'. The injunction placed before the start of the CA trial will remain in effect. The case is essentially about juristiction when attempting to prosecute a number of defendants simultaneously in order to save on legal fees."
I sure hope Judge O'Conner doesn't tell everyone that I burnt her The Matrix last week..
Not being a constitutional lawyer, is it possible to turn this on its head and while people are there anyway arguing that DMCA is an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of expression?
And although "fair use" and the right to reverse engineer aren't constitutional, could there be an argument for striking down DMCA because of the limitations it puts on those principles?
Dave.
I am surprised there isn't a rogue bunch of do-gooder MPAA avocate programmers out there building a ReCSS..
You know.. to reprotect all those unprotected movies out there in the ether..
Then the MPAA could sue everyone that DOESN'T include a copy of "ReCSS" on their website
-- If at first you don't succeed, lie!
What I would like to know is how this is going to effect the consumer, because if I remember correctly, any consumer may create a copy of a movie/cd/software that they own and use that "backup" copy in order to preserve the orginal copy of the media. I remember the arguement that the MPAA had when VCRs initially came out, as well as the arguements about audio casettes as well. I don't see how making a copy of your DVDs, for your own personal use, is any different.
I can understand that they are fighting this because you can send out bootleg copies of movies on the internet, but you have to wonder, if the internet wasn't as prevelant in the USA as it is, would we even be hearing about this?
i don't think the court has agreed to take the case just yet. it has just maintained the injunction until the court can decide IF it is going to take the case. furthermore, i'm not sure if the decision would in any way make a ruling on the DMCA.
"A response from Pavlovich's attorney, Allon Levy, is due by the end of the day on Thursday. Because O'Connor is the Supreme Court justice responsible for cases arising out of California, she has the ability to place some decisions on hold until the complete court can meet and vote to take the case or deny the petition for review."
smd4985
Seditious groups like the RIAA/MPAA are fighting a losing battle to try to back up outdated business models with legislation. Copy protection doesn't work, it's even been tried -- and later dropped -- by software companies like Lotus and Ashton-Tate during the 1980's. The role that RIAA/MPAA companies have played in the past has been as a channel for distribution. The Internet is a much more convenient distribution channel and they need to rework their business models to take that into account. DeCSS is perhaps so embarrassing for the RIAA/MPAA companies because it shows where they are falling far short of market needs -- DeCSS allows time-shifting or space-shifting, both of which are not just fully legal, but widely practiced and accepted.
Free as in market...the RIAA and MPAA are hurting the U.S. economy.
According to this article, DeCSS is for "DVD-copying". It is "software that can be used to copy DVDs". It "allows encrypted DVDs to be descrambled". It "injuriously [affects] the motion picture and computer industries in California.".
Now, all this is true (or debatable, for the last claim), but nowhere in this article does it even hint that DeCSS can be used simply to watch DVD's that you own, which (gasp!) is what I actually use it for. That's a worrying omission, and one which I hope doesn't signal a trend.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
We granted review to determine whether the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over Pavlovich's person based solely on the posting of the DeCSS source code on the LiVid Web site. We conclude it did not.
That's from the California Supreme Court. In short, it tells what specific decision of the trial court that they are addressing - namely, they only addressed the matter of jurisdiction.
So, the Supreme Court will almost certainly be limiting the appeal to that question as well. While they won't be addressing the details of whether or not the DVD CCA is within their rights to prosecute anyone, anywhere for this "crime," this case might mark an important decision in how far U.S. protection of big business extends through optical fiber.
My prediction:
*Bill Gates will be named amicus curiae for the case
*Scalia will conclude that, since electrical pulses travel at nearly the speed of light, the distance between the LiVid servers and California will have shrunk to nothing, thereby placing the server within the jurisdiction of California.
*Satan will invite Rehnquist to tea.
There is a link from the article to this page. Which has loads of interpretations of DeCSS. Including a Haiku and a screen dump.
How can the capitalist pigs think that this is not free speech or that DeCSS is still a trade secret
Personally as soon as I heard that DeCSS was banned I downloaded a copy just to prove to myself the futility of internet censorship.
better delete it now before the law gets hold of me and confiscated my PC for having sensitive materials
IMHO, any lawyer that brings up DMCA would look like an idiot. It should be noted that only a certain select group of lawyers can be present oral arguments to the Supreme Court. I am not sure what you have to do to become qualified, but I do know that you can't hire just any lawyer.
This is not a DeCSS case. This is a jurisdiction case. It is definitely news for nerds and stuff that matters, since internet jurisdiction is a really big deal. I doubt there will be much or any discussion of the DMCA in this case. Probably a good thing too, because you generally want your test case to be completely beyond reproach. Not that I think that Pavlovich did anything wrong, but something more along the lines of Felton's SDMI paper would be more attractive to the court.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Remember, this is about the jurisdiction question. It has nothing to do with the case itself, i.e. the SC would not decide whether DeCSS is legal or not.
What this is about is that DVD CCA sued 77 people from two dozen US states and a dozen foreign countries, all in one fell swoop.
As one of the defendents in question, I have to say it's got nothing to do with saving legal fees. We received an e-mail notification of the pending injunction less than 48 hours before it would have been signed. If you live somewhere in europe, have less than two days and the time difference working against you, there is little chance that you can do anything about it. Even had I gotten hold of legal council first thing next morning, my lawyer would have had less than 24 hours to investigate the relevant US laws, find a California lawyer to represent me and write up a defense.
This was not at all about saving legal fees, it was all about steamrolling over as many people as you can manage to squeeze in.
(fortunately, the idiots didn't know CC from BCC, so we got a full list of everyone sued, had all of them put on a mailing list within a few hours and the twits were greeted by EFF lawyers when they tried to get their court signature. The full story is somewhere on my website).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
DeCSS isn't for copying, because you can copy DVDs without using DeCSS or any decryption. Just copy the pattern on the disc. Commercially available bulk copiers do just that. Hell, the large-scale means of producing DVDs are photographic.
Supreme court is just like regular court, except it also has tomatoes and sour cream.
Personally as soon as I heard that DeCSS was banned I downloaded a copy just to prove to myself the futility of internet censorship.
You and everyone else. Thats the great thing about the internet. Ban something and 1000+ people are going to download it and mirror it everywhere. The sooner the RIAA/MPAA/etc realize that the internet is not something they can control and that we, as consumers, are going to thwart their attempts to shut off the flow of information the better off they're going to be. I personally will dance the jigg if/when the RIAA and/or MPAA get bitchlapped in court.
Hell, the idiot lawyers even included the source code for DeCSS in the court documents. There's no need for anyone to mirror it anymore!
The link above is the Hoy filing from this page...
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
It doesn't take any special qualifications to be admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court. Get your application here. I've seen these certificates on the walls of many law offices in Washington, D.C. There are about 180,000 lawyers who are members of the Bar of the Supreme Court.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Now that the 'cat is out of the bag', why can't MPAA and the authorities just accept that CSS is out in the open and is no longer a secret?
Which cat are you referring to? It seems the best we can expect here is not a decision, but an opinion.
So it's more of a Schroedinger's cat. Is it inside or outside the bag, and is it dead or alive?
Hopefully the supremes will, in ruling on trying many people in this instance to save legal fees, write some opinion thus: "And we find the DMCA a circumvention of the rights of the people as laid down in etc etc etc."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
That is not what the article says.
The court has not yet decided if they are going to hear the case.I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
AFAIK, car doors can still be opened with slim jims. At least, that is how I have gotten into my car every time I locked my keys inside. Ironically, the only time my car was stolen, the thief(s) did not use a slim jim. They just broke the window.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
What I would like to know is how this is going to affect the consumer, because if I remember correctly, any consumer may create a copy of a movie/cd/software that they own and use that "backup" copy in order to preserve the orginal copy of the media.
I noticed an interesting thing in the packaging that came with one of my kids' Disney DVDs last week: You can now register your purchases with Disney and, in return, they will send you a new copy of any registered DVD if the original gets damaged.
On the one hand, this is a very nice benefit for the consumer: I don't have to bother finding ways to back up my DVDs, because if they ever get ruined, the company will ship me a replacement, at their cost. Of course, it only works as long as the company continues to offer the service.
On the other hand, I have to wonder if this isn't just part of their strategy to eliminate Fair Use exemptions. "No, Senator, consumers do *not* have any legitimate need to make copies... Yes, of course we recognize that disks get damaged, which is why we've generously arranged to replace damaged disks, which is a much better solution for consumers since it requires no expensive technology, just a phone call or a letter... Thank, you, sir, yes we think so too... Yes, sir, our contribution to your campaign will be in the mail tomorrow."
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The attorneys sought to sue more than 500 people from all around the world in one lawsuit brought in Santa Clara County, Calif. [...] The point is we would like to get the Supreme Court to affirm that the use of one case to (target) multiple people who are distributing information is appropriate," Kessler said.
This is kinda scary. A major limitation on RIAA/MPAA is that they have to sue their enemies one at a time. Since each lawsuit is expensive and they have about 50,000,000 enemies, this is problematic. So they want permission to able to do a sort of "reverse class-action", where they're allowed to sue everyone at once. They started with a tidy block of 500 defendants, but why not 5000 in the next round? Or 500,000?! Woohoo!
The courts are already too-often used by those who can afford lawsuits to bludgeon those who can not. Allowing corporations to sue hundreds or even thousands of people at once would be a disaster for the American legal system and America in general.
Just to clarify, DeCSS does not help making backups (defined as an exact copy). In fact, it's nearly impossible for the consumer to make a backup of a typical commercial DVD. The biggest problem with making backups at home is that there is no DVD-R method for making DVD-9's. The big illegal copying shops can handle this, of course. Whether this situation is technological or a result of cartel collusion is an excercise for the reader to determine.
What DeCSS does is enable fair use.
Keep repeating that over and over until you're blue in the face. Maybe somebody will hear it eventually.
disclaimer: yes, you could re-master the data from a DVD onto multiple DVD-R's, but that's not what most people mean by 'backup'.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I'v had the DeCSS code up on my web site here in California for almost 2 years now I think. It is insanely easy to find on the net as well.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
No, the end of a crow bar through your window still works quite well. a hand towel usually dampens a lot of the noise (from the window).
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Look, if a company is willing to replace a damaged DVD--assuming they're the ones eating the shipping cost--then what would a buyer need to make backup copies for? Somehow I have a feeling that even if the MPAA as a whole ever agreed to replace all damaged DVDs at no cost then people would still find something to whine about.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
Unfortunately, even if I have a non-supported device that I can program a decoder for, the DMCA reverse engineering clauses make it a federal crime to do so, which is why the DMCA is a very poorly written piece of legislation --unless of course you happen to support the MPAA movie cartel.
Hence the controversy over DeCSS.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
It's my understanding that you can't get sued for knowing a trade secret. You can get sued if when you violate a contract by spreading a trade secret or if you use a trade secret for profit.
:)
Clearly Pavlovich didn't violate a contract. I don't think he used it for profit either. And since no one violated a contract to write DeCSS then it still wouldn't be illegal even if he did make a profit.
I thought that it was interesting that DeCSS was linked to on cnet. Clearly they feel the same way.
AP Wire is reporting that Justice O'Connor just lifted the stay she imposed last week. This story seems to contradict the CNET story:
t us -DVD-Encryption.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sco
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on Friday threw out an emergency stay that barred a former webmaster from putting DVD decryption programs on the Internet.
O'Connor had imposed the stay last week, at the urging of a group that licenses software to film studios to block the illegal copying of DVDs.
New York attorney Jeffrey Kessler said the association fears that Matthew Pavlovich will repost programs that help people duplicate movies for free.
As of today Justice O'Conner has rescinded the stay and the California Supreme Court ruling will stand. The case in california is effectively over. Nothing prevents the DVDCCA filing an action in the defendant's home state of Texas though. However this was obviously not their preferred option in they were prepared to go to the Supreme Court to keep the case in California.