LWN.net Logo

Bunner DVD case goes to the Supreme Court

From:  Effector List <alerts@action.eff.org>
To:  LWN
Subject:  EFFector 16.14: Supreme Court to Hear California DVD Case on May 29, 2003
Date:  Wed, 21 May 2003 17:53:26 -0700 (PDT)

EFFector        Vol. 16, No. 14        May 21, 2003        ren@eff.org

A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation     ISSN 1062-9424
In the 253rd Issue of EFFector:

    * Supreme Court to Hear California DVD Case
    * TIA Report Shines No New Light
    * EFF Accepting Used Car Donations
    * Deep Links (6): Oops! We Engineered Your Rights Away
    * Staff Calendar
    * Administrivia

For more information on EFF activities & alerts:
  http://www.eff.org/

To join EFF or make an additional donation:
  http://www.eff.org/support/

EFF is a member-supported nonprofit. Please sign up as a member today!

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Supreme Court to Hear California DVD Case

The California Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing May 29, 2003, on
a key legal challenge to the publication of DeCSS, the software that
decrypts DVDs.  In this case, called DVD-CCA v. Bunner, California
resident Andrew Bunner was one of thousands of republishers of DeCSS
throughout the U.S. and the world.  The Court will review an appellate
court decision that held that a preliminary lower court order
preventing Bunner from publishing the software violated his First
Amendment rights.

DVD-CCA, the organization that licenses DVD technology for Hollywood
movie studios, originally filed the lawsuit in December 1999 and
obtained the preliminary anti-publication order shortly thereafter.
DVD-CCA named hundreds of people in the lawsuit, including those who
printed DeCSS on T-shirts.  DVD-CCA contends that republication of
DeCSS improperly discloses its trade secrets despite the fact that the
program was widely available. It is uncommon for trade secret owners
to attempt to restrict publication by members of the public with whom
they share no contractual relationship or who had no involvement in
the initial disclosure of a trade secret. Bunner had republished DeCSS
on his website after reading about it on Slashdot and deciding it was
newsworthy.

"Trade secret protection stops once information is no longer a
secret," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "DeCSS is obviously not a
secret -- it's available on thousands of websites worldwide. Even if
some of the information in DeCSS was once a secret, and even that is
not clear, DeCSS is now publicly available.  If DVD-CCA had wanted
additional protections, it should have used other legal techniques
such as patent or copyright rather than trade secret law."

"We're confident the Supreme Court will recognize, as the Court of
Appeal did, that this is a classic First Amendment case. The trial
court's order was a prior restraint on Mr. Bunner's speech.  The
constitutional test for restrictions on the publication of
'confidential' information that apply in numerous other contexts must
also apply here," said David Greene, Executive Director for the First
Amendment Project and main author of the groups' legal brief.

Another branch of the case, DVD-CCA v. Pavlovich, ended this spring
when DVD-CCA decided not to appeal a California Supreme Court decision
that it was improper to force Matthew Pavlovich, another alleged
republisher of DeCSS, to come to California to defend the trade secret
claim.

In other DeCSS-related litigation, the original publisher of the
program, Norwegian teenager Jon Johansen, was acquitted of all
criminal charges.  The Norwegian government has appealed that decision
and the case is currently scheduled for re-trial in December, 2003.

Links:
EFF' s DVD-CCA v. Bunner case archive:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/

The 6th Appellate Court's decision overturning the injunction:
http://www.eff.org/sc/20011101_bunner_appellate_decision.html

Pavlovich case archive:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/#pavlovich

Jon Johansen case materials:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DeCSS_prosecutions/Johansen_DeCSS_case/

EFF Board member and Boalt Hall School of Law Professor Pam
Samuelson's brand new paper on trade secrets and the First Amendment:
http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/TS%201st%20A%203d%20dr.pdf

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* TIA Report Shines No New Light

The Bush Administration released its long-awaited report to Congress
on the "Total Information Awareness" program (now renamed "Terrorism
Information Awareness") on May 20, 2003.

"The report is disappointing -- after more than a hundred pages, you
don't know anything more about whether TIA will work or whether your
civil liberties will be safe against it," said EFF Senior Staff
Attorney Lee Tien.  "It's also disingenuous for a report about new
technologies for monitoring people to keep saying, 'don't worry, we'll
follow existing privacy law.' Privacy law is already behind the
technology curve, and the Bush Administration fully understands that
TIA will only make the problem worse."

This advisory:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/TIA/20030520_pr.php

TIA report available at:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/TIA/20030520_tia_report.php

EFF TIA archive:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/TIA/

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* EFF Accepting Used Car Donations

Donating a vehicle to charity can earn you a healthy itemized tax
deduction. Now EFF is able to accept used car donations all around the
country!

EFF has partnered with Vehicle Donation to Any Charity, which gives us
the ability to process vehicle donations with minimal expense to us
and very little hassle for the donor.

If you want to get rid of an old vehicle and help EFF, just visit
https://secure.eff.org, follow the appropriate link, and walk through
the donation process.  Thanks for your support!

Links:
Donate to EFF:
https://secure.eff.org

Vehicle Donation to Any Charity:
http://www.v-dac.com

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Deep Links
Deep Links features noteworthy news items, victories, and threats from
around the Internet.

~ Oops! We Engineered Your Rights Away
The lessons of Intuit and digital rights management:
http://www.business2.com/articles/web/0,,49577,00.html

~ Chinese Website Operator Jailed
Huang Qi has been sentenced to five years in prison for allowing
articles on the 1989 Tiananmen Square killings to be posted on his site:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3039041.stm

~ Beep Beep: RIAA Radar
When used in conjunction with Amazon.com's detailed album view, this
bookmarklet can check if an album was produced by an RIAA member company:
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

~ Puretunes is Spanish for P2P
A Spanish music downloading service claims to have a legal loophole
and is partnering with Grokster:
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-1007920.html

~ Three Congressmen Form "Anti-Piracy" Caucus
They're supporting stronger IP laws and, if their histories tell us
anything, hacking the computers of P2P users:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-1007908.html

~ Tennessee Digital Freedom Fights the S-DMCA
TNDF is a model resource for state activism on the S-DMCA:
http://www.tndf.net/

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Staff Calendar
For a complete listing of EFF speaking engagements (with locations and
times), please visit:
http://www.eff.org/calendar/

~ Saturday, May 24: Assorted EFF staff at the "Be Here Now
Fundraiser," an event that benefits EFF and others:
http://www.beherenowsf.org/

~ Sunday, May 25: Cory Doctorow on "The Computer Report" radio show. 
WOTW 900 AM, Greater Nashua, NH.

~ Tuesday, May 27: Wendy Seltzer will be at U.C. Irvine for a
roundtable discussion on the DMCA.

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Administrivia

EFFector is published by:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
  http://www.eff.org/

Editor:
Ren Bucholz, Activist
  ren@eff.org

To Join EFF online, or make an additional donation, go to:
  http://www.eff.org/support/

Membership & donation queries:
  membership@eff.org

General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries:
  ask@eff.org

Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To
reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for
their express permission. Press releases and EFF announcements &
articles may be reproduced individually at will.

To change your address or other information, please visit:
  http://action.eff.org/subscribe/

If you have already subscribed to the EFF Action Center, please visit:
  http://action.eff.org/action/login.asp.

To unsubscribe from the EFFector mailing list, send an email to
alerts@action.eff.org with the word "Remove" in the subject.

(Please ask ren@eff.org to manually remove you from the list if this
does not work for you for some reason.)

Back issues are available at:
  http://www.eff.org/effector

You can also get the latest issue of EFFector via the Web at:
  http://www.eff.org/effector/current.html



(Log in to post comments)

I am not optimistic

Posted May 22, 2003 14:42 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

Basic "duh" arguments about freedom of speech and the sort of open society we want to live in seem to be viewed as simplistic and naive in today's society. There will be all sorts of legalistic issues about proprietary rights and precedents-- a lot of sound and fury-- that will easily trump the
first sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. (Who needs life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness when you've got "good for business", "strengthening intellectual property", and "proprietary rights"?)

Maybe I'm just in a cynical mood, but I expect the free software/free thought community will need to hold a wake about this Supreme ruling similar to the one we had to hold about the Eldred ruling.

-Rob

My Train of Thought

Posted May 22, 2003 18:43 UTC (Thu) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]

Court cases are often an occasion to focus attention on important issues, but a lot of times the real problem has been created by bad lawmaking in state and national legislatures and the court is only ruling on very fine, technical points of law. When the jerks that write these bad laws are winning local primaries and taking money from special interests that help finance their ability to spam their name and sway uninformed, disinterested voters before elections, most of us are not paying much attention. We just whine about it later when we don't like the laws, or the court doesn't find they happen to be in direct violation of some principle written into the Constitution before the advent of electricity. If we really care enough about better Democracy, we need to find better ways of informing voters about candidates who have/promise to support their real interests, and then get them to vote in primaries before it becomes a choice between Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Ripoff in the general election.


My Train of Thought

Posted May 23, 2003 0:49 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

Unfortunately, the primary thing that candidates are sold in in primaries nowadays is "he can beat Tweedle-Dum". Primary voting isn't so much for the best candidate, but for the candidate who can beat the Democrats, or the Republicans. And so we always have Tweedle-Dee.

The other thing is that on all but a very few issues, the public is horribly uninformed. How many people really have any clue about intellectual property issues? Not very many. Some probably want to be able to keep using Kazaa, some probably think that pirate punks are a problem, most don't even think about the issues. Therefore, there's no reason for any candidate to do anything in the public interest; there's no penalty. There *are* some issues that candidates would have to be careful overmuch kowtowing to special interests, as people will pay attention, but these basic freedom of speech issues are not those issues, simply because so few people recognize them as such.

I'm not really sure how one would go about educating the world on them, either. There is so much plausible sounding rhetoric from respectable looking sources on the "proprietary rights" side of the issue that those who would argue against things like the DMCA or squelching of DeCSS code as no-good freeloaders.

-Rob

This is the California Supreme Court

Posted May 22, 2003 15:28 UTC (Thu) by dthurston (guest, #4603) [Link]

It's not clear from the text on the main page, but note that this case is going to the California Supreme Court, not the federal Supreme Court. So it won't set any precedent outside of California.

This is the California Supreme Court

Posted May 22, 2003 16:14 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

Doh -- you're right, and it does say that there right in the first paragraph....

Still, all my reasons for cynicism apply :)

-Rob

Copyright © 2003, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds