I respectfully disagree...

I respectfully disagree...

I read the majority opinion (but not the dissent), and must respectfully disagree with a few of your points about the majority opinion.

Considering other evidence

Although I am not a lawyer, I believe that the judges were following procedure: the issue was not the guilt or innocence of Pavlovich but rather the appropriatenss of California for the trial. The two issues are handled separately: only after jurisdiction is decided is guilt or innocence considered.

It would not have been appropriate for the judges to consider the legality of reverse-engineering, prior availability of the source code, etc. -- all of these are arguments about guilt or innocence, not about the procedural detail of where the trial should be held.

"Aiming"

I do not believe the majority of judges held that Pavlovich's actions were "aimed" at anyone in California: in fact, I believe they found the opposite to be true, which was the basis for their judgement.

The method they used to determine "aiming" is a sliding scale, based on the interactivity and commercial aspects of the web site. On one end of the scale would be a commercial, interactive website -- I imagine something like Amazon.com. On the other end of the scale is a passive, non-commercial web site, simply providing information for those who found the site. The more commercial and interactive the website, the more of a right the "consumer" has to sue the site's operators in the consumer's local court.

The judges ruled (correctly, I think) that LiViD was a passive, non-commercial web site, and thus the DVDCCA could not sue them in California court. (The judges also mentioned that the DVDCCA is actually a third party in this case: the movie studios are being affected, and technically the DVDCCA is not a movie studio.)

To put it more simply, I believe this hinges on a matter of intent: did Pavlovich intend his web site to specifically act on someone in California? No.

Downsides

Still, there are several downsides to this ruling:

1. It does not establish Pavlovich's innocence or set any precedence on reverse engineering or the DMCA.

2. The ruling was close: 4-3.

3. Even the majority opinion seemed to suggest that Pavlovich had done something wrong: it closed by saying that he may well still "face the music" in another jurisdiction.