This was sent to the eurorights mailing list. I think we are doomed! Thanks D -- "Your house sounds like a fire hazard" Peter Clarke ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jei <jei@cc.hut.fi> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:10:20 +0300 (EET DST) Subject: [Eurorights] FC: California appeals court rules against DeCSS defendant (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 07:43:44 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: politech@politechbot.com Subject: FC: California appeals court rules against DeCSS defendant The opinion, released Tuesday, can be found at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H021961.PDF Background on DVDCCA lawsuit (a California state case using trade secret claims, as opposed to the federal DMCA lawsuit in New York): http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=dvdcca Statements from the DVD CCA attorneys: In response to Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, ruling on Matthew Pavlovich v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Co. Jeffrey L. Kessler, Senior Litigation Partner (Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP): "We're very pleased with the court's decision because it stands for the principle that individuals who steal trade secrets cannot hide behind the internet as a shield to protect them from responsibility for their unlawful conduct." Robert G. Sugarman, Senior Litigation Partner (Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP): "This decision clearly indicates that individual states like California have the legal ability to protect businesses and organizations in their states from unlawful conduct carried out against them via the internet." ************ Excerpts from ruling: Pavlovich founded and operated the LiVid video project, whose purpose was to aid in the development of an unlicensed system for DVD playback and copying. Pavlovich owned and operated the Web site called "livId.on.openprojects.net," where he posted the DeCSS program. Pavlovich knew that DVDs deliver motion picture content to their purchasers. He testified in his deposition that DVDs are "a large storage medium" that can be used for "a lot of different things," one of which, "holding motion pictures," is "probably the most well known." Pavlovich admitted in his deposition that "there was an organization which you had to file for or apply for a license or whatever" to use certain DVD technology, and that he knew about this because "[i]n the course of the development of the project, the Linux video and DVD project, there was a lot of discussion regarding the decryption piece of the full length of decoding of DVD and, you know, there were individuals making statements on the mailing list as to - to that effect." Pressed for the kind of statements he had heard, Pavlovich answered it was "[s]omething along the lines of you've got to apply for a license and whatnot." Nonetheless, Pavlovich never sought or obtained a license to use DVD technology for his LiVid project. Pavlovich admitted that his LiVid project utilized DVD CCA's trade secrets, including those contained in DeCSS. Pavlovich further admitted that through the LiVid project he aimed to develop an unlicensed DVD player that would use DeCSS to decrypt DVD data. Pavlovich knew that DeCSS was developed by reverse engineering, which he knew was unauthorized. [...] Despite his knowledge of how DeCSS obtained and misappropriated DVD CCA's trade secrets, Pavlovich sought to and actually disseminated those trade secrets. [...] Because Pavlovich knew that California is commonly known as the center of the movie industry, and knew that Silicon Valley in California is one of the top three technology "hot spots" in the country, he knew, or should have known, that the DVD republishing and distribution activities he was illegally doing and allowing to be done through the use of his Web site, while benefiting him, were injuriously affecting the motion picture and computer industries in California. The question is whether Pavlovich's lack of physical and personal presence in California incapacitates California courts from jurisdictionally reaching him through its long-arm statute. We hold it does not. [...] We conclude the denial by the trial court of Pavlovich's motion to quash service of process comports with notions of fair play and substantial justice under the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Consequently, the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court is reasonable. The petition for a writ of mandate is denied. Real party in interest DVD CCA is awarded costs as the prevailing party. ************ Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:40:44 -0700 From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org> Subject: CA Court Asserts Jurisdiction Over TX Net Publisher Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Advisory For Immediate Release: August 8, 2001 Contacts: Robin Gross, Staff Attorney - Intellectual Property, robin@eff.org, +1 415-436-9333 x112 Lee Tien, EFF Senior Staff Attorney, tien@eff.org, +1 415-436-9333 x102 CALIFORNIA COURT ASSERTS JURISDICTION OVER NON-RESIDENT INTERNET PUBLISHER On August 7th, the California Sixth Appellate District issued an opinion denying Matthew Pavlovich's motion to dismiss the case against him for lack of personal jurisdiction over him. Pavlovich, who was a college student in Indiana and now lives in Texas, claims postings made to the LiVID mailing list, which he ran from his home computer should not subject him to defending himself in California. LiVID is an open source development team working to build a DVD player compatible with the Linux operating system that could compete with the movie studios' monopoly on DVD players. In January 2000, a California judge issued an injunction banning dozens of individuals, including Pavlovich, from publishing DeCSS computer code. Today, the court held that because Pavlovich knew the movie business was in California, publishing information that might have an effect on its profits was a sufficient connection to find Pavlovich within the court's purview. This ruling magnifies the ability of Hollywood or other businesses to successfully sue anyone in the world who publishes information on the Internet which the movie studios claim could hurt their profits. Pavlovich is considering an appeal of the order to the California Supreme Court on Constitutional Due Process grounds. Text of ruling: http://www.eff.org/Cases/DVDCCA_case/20010807_pavlovich_appelate_ruling.html About EFF: The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil liberties organization working to protect rights in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to support free expression, privacy, and openness in the information society. EFF is a member-supported organization and maintains one of the most linked-to Web sites in the world: http://www.eff.org/ - end - -- -- Stanton McCandlish mech@eff.org http://www.eff.org/~mech Technical Director/Webmaster Electronic Frontier Foundation voice: +1 415 436 9333 x105 fax: +1 415 436 9993 EFF, 454 Shotwell St. San Francisco CA 94110 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Eurorights mailing list Eurorights@eurorights.org http://www.eurorights.org/mailman/listinfo/eurorights