Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Update To Pavlovich DeCSS case; Stay Lifted

Posted by Hemos on from the moving-forward-with-the-case dept.

MeanMF writes "Update to this article:Infoworld reports that the Justice O'Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court has lifted the temporary stay on the California Supreme Court's ruling that Pavlovich can not be tried in California courts. That ruling can now take effect. More from the EFF."

6 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. personal jurisdiction by peterb · · Score: 5, Informative


    When reading tidbits like this, it's important to keep in mind that Sandra Day wasn't giving any clues as to the Supreme Court's take on the merits of the case. It looks to me like a purely procedural question, that of personal jurisdiction -- does the California court have the right to drag someone from Texas into Court there. Nothing to do specifically with DeCSS at all.

    Still, it's always nice to see things get just a little bit harder for the entertainment industry.

  2. Alternate article by Turbyne · · Score: 2, Informative

    Same topic:
    http://news.com.com/2100-1023-979197.html?tag=fd_t op

    --
    ~A'Ëq'i4d)^'$ÊSÈòB
  3. Re:DeCSS - why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Region coding is the reason they still use CSS.

  4. Re:What? No DeCSS link? by egjertse · · Score: 2, Informative

    Go here and grab your favourite

    --
    ^]:wq!^M
  5. Re:These lawyers are clueless!! by Ymerej · · Score: 3, Informative

    "We have tried to get Mr. Pavlovich to agree that he would not distribute (the DeCSS software), but he has left it up in the air what he would do and refused to indicate what his intentions are. We'll have to take that into account in deciding how we will proceed," Kessler said.
    Translation: "We threatened Mr. Pavlovich some more, but he wouldn't buckle, so we're holding the threat of more actions over his head."

  6. Re:1st A. and PJ by MacAndrew · · Score: 3, Informative

    It already has. Many years ago, a dry state, IIRC OK, banned the serving of drinks on any flights that passed over their boundries. It was eventually overturned; but, I don't recall on which grounds.

    Good cite, wrong generalization. I don't know how that was decided either, perhaps interstate commerce. But I was referring to jurisdiction over person, not application of law to that person.

    The Q again turns on contacts and fairness. If that overflying plane dropped a rock on Oklahoma, we wouldn't question jurisdiction over the perpetrators. Mere overflight, without some connection, is probably not minimum contacts. But if something happens, whose law applies, and where is the case tried?

    So you look at what the person did, and what they intended, and the impact in the forum state.