Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley

Last updated

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case name Universal City Studios, Inc., Para-Mount Pictures Corporation, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., Tristar Pictures, Inc., Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Shawn C. Reimerdes, Eric Corley a/k/a "Emmanuel Goldstein," Roman Kazan, and 2600 Enterprises, Inc., Defendants.
ArguedMay 1, 2001
DecidedNovember 28, 2001
Citation273 F.3d 429
Holding
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits the distribution of software that enables users to circumvent copyright protection mechanisms.
Court membership
Judges sitting Jon O. Newman, José A. Cabranes, Alvin W. Thompson
Case opinions
MajorityJon O. Newman
Keywords
Copyright law, anti-circumvention

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley (originally known as Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes), 273 F.3d 429 (2nd Cir., 2001), was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [1] This ruling was the first circuit-level test of the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Contents

Background

Eight plaintiffs, all movie studios, sought an injunction against the distribution of DeCSS, a program capable of decrypting video content that had been encrypted by the Content Scramble System, which was commonly used to protect DVDs from unauthorized copying. DeCSS was developed by Norwegian teenager Jon Johansen and released in October 1999 via LiViD, a mailing list focused on producing programming tools and software libraries relevant to DVD use on the Linux operating system. DeCSS was distributed by LiViD and other Internet communities without authorization from the DVD Copy Control Association, the trade organization responsible for DVD copy protection. [2]

District court proceedings

In January 2000, the movie studios filed suit under the title Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York . [3] The defendants were Eric Corley (publisher of 2600: The Hacker Quarterly magazine, which copied the DeCSS code for its readers), Shawn Reimerdes (who had posted the code on dvd-copy.com, a personal website [4] ), Roman Kazan (who ran an Internet hosting service that provided access to DeCSS [5] ), and 2600 Enterprises, Inc. [6] The studios claimed that the defendants, by making DeCSS available, were trafficking in circumvention devices, an illegal act under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). [7] The studios sought an injunction that would prohibit the distribution and use of the DeCSS program, as well as monetary damages. [3]

At the beginning of the proceedings, the district court granted a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from posting the code for DeCSS. [8] The court felt this precaution was necessary given that the movie studios made a reasonable argument that widespread dissemination of DeCSS would cause irreparable harm to their interests. [9] Reimerdes and Kazan then entered into consent decrees with the plaintiffs and were subsequently dropped from the suit. Both were then barred from posting the DeCSS code or providing links to sites where the code could be found. [10]

Corley removed the DeCSS code from 2600.com after the preliminary injunction was issued, but did not reach a settlement of his own with the plaintiffs and remained a defendant in the suit. In what Corley termed an act of "electronic civil disobedience," 2600.com continued to host links to other websites that themselves provided the source code for DeCSS.[ citation needed ] Corley also moved for the court to overturn the Digital Millennium Copyright Act altogether as a violation of the First Amendment, because it restricted citizens from distributing and discussing programming code, which in turn is an item of expression. [11]

In August 2000, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Kaplan acknowledged the tension in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act between copyright holders and those who wish to use new technologies, but concluded that the language of the act provided relief for the plaintiffs against unauthorized copying of their copyrighted works. [3] In Kaplan's words, "For now, at least, Congress has resolved this clash in the DMCA and in plaintiffs' favor. Given the peculiar characteristics of computer programs for circumventing encryption and other access control measures, the DMCA as applied to posting and linking here does not contravene the First Amendment." [11]

Judge Kaplan also held that the Corley and 2600.com had violated the DMCA by continuing to post the code that ran afoul of the act's anti-circumvention provisions. Kaplan issued another injunction against Corley, prohibiting him from posting the DeCSS code or providing links to sites where the code could be found. [11]

Corley appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Circuit court ruling

Corley's appeal at the Second Circuit, now under the name Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley because Shawn Reimerdes had been removed as a defendant, received numerous amicus curiae briefs from both the entertainment industry and supporters of Internet innovations. [12] [13]

In November 2001, the Second Circuit upheld Kaplan's ruling at the lower court. [1] However, the circuit court found merit in Corley's view that computer programs are a form of protected speech regardless of whether they are in source code or object code form, which commentators regarded as significant. [14] The circuit court opined that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act could be subjected to intermediate scrutiny as a partial restriction on free speech. [1] Citing the Supreme Court precedent Hill v. Colorado , [15] the circuit court held that some laws can restrict speech for reasons that are "justified without reference to the content" if there are larger public benefits from the speech restrictions. Hence, due to the conflict with the DMCA in the present case, DeCSS was held to be a form of speech but it could be restricted due to its functionality (anti-circumvention that is prohibited per the DMCA) and not its content. [14]

The circuit court also considered Corley's fair use defense, as Corley argued that DeCSS allowed users to watch encrypted DVDs, which prior to that point had been impossible on Linux machines. The circuit court held that the specific facts of the present case were beyond the types of fair use that are permissible under the DMCA. According to the court, "the Appellants do not claim to be making fair use of any copyrighted materials, and nothing in the injunction prohibits them from making such fair use. They are barred from trafficking in a decryption code that enables unauthorized access to copyrighted materials." [1]

Impact and subsequent developments

Both the district and circuit court rulings were controversial, and have been widely criticized by free speech advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as the American Library Association, the author of The Boondocks, [13] and others, due to upholding legal restrictions on expressive programming code. On the other hand, some media and content-owning organizations, such as the National Football League and Major League Baseball, supported the decisions. [12]

Corley initially planned to appeal the circuit court decision to the Supreme Court, but decided not to after consultation with his lawyers. [16] Despite the courts' rulings, the DeCSS code is still widely available on the Internet[ example needed ].

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">DeCSS</span> Free open-source program to decode DVDs with encryption

DeCSS is one of the first free computer programs capable of decrypting content on a commercially produced DVD video disc. Before the release of DeCSS, free and open source operating systems could not play encrypted video DVDs.

The DVD Copy Control Association is an organization primarily responsible for the copy protection of DVDs. The Content Scramble System (CSS) was devised for this purpose to make copyright infringement difficult, but also presents obstacles to some legitimate uses of the media. The association is also responsible for the controversial Regional Playback Control (RPC), the region encoding scheme which gives movie studios geographic control over DVD distribution.

<i>Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.</i>

Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82, was a copyright case about the Russian language weekly Russian Kurier in New York City that had copied and published various materials from Russian newspapers and news agency reports of Itar-TASS. The case was ultimately decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The decision was widely commented upon and the case is considered a landmark case because the court defined rules applicable in the U.S. on the extent to which the copyright laws of the country of origin or those of the U.S. apply in international disputes over copyright. The court held that to determine whether a claimant actually held the copyright on a work, the laws of the country of origin usually applied, but that to decide whether a copyright infringement had occurred and for possible remedies, the laws of the country where the infringement was claimed applied.

Anti-circumvention refers to laws which prohibit the circumvention of technological barriers for using a digital good in certain ways which the rightsholders do not wish to allow. The requirement for anti-circumvention laws was globalized in 1996 with the creation of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Copyright Treaty.

<i>Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc.</i> American legal case concerning the DMCA

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 is a legal case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning the anti-trafficking provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), in the context of two competing universal garage door opener companies. It discusses the statutory structure and legislative history of the DMCA to help clarify the intent of the anti-circumvention provisions and decide who holds the burden of proof. It expresses that the statute creates a cause of action for liability and does not create a property right, and holds that as Chamberlain had alleged that Skylink was in violation of the anti-trafficking provision, it had the burden to prove and failed to show that access was unauthorized and its rights were infringed under the Copyright Act. As Chamberlain incorrectly argued that Skylink had the burden of proof and failed to prove their claim, the court upheld summary judgment in favor of Skylink.

<i>A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i> US legal case

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David S. Touretzky</span> American computer scientist

David S. Touretzky is a research professor in the Computer Science Department and the Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition at Carnegie Mellon University. He received a BA in Computer Science at Rutgers University in 1978, and earned a master's degree and a Ph.D. (1984) in Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University. Touretzky has worked as an Internet activist in favor of freedom of speech, especially what he perceives as abuse of the legal system by government and private authorities. He is a notable critic of Scientology.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

DVD X Copy is a consumer software program that enabled novice computer users to copy any DVD movie to any blank DVD. Most commercial DVD movies include Content Scrambling System (CSS), a copy-protection technology designed to prevent DVD movies from being copied. This controversial DVD copy software program included technology that decrypts the CSS copy protection mechanism on DVD movie discs. DVD X Copy products are still being sold on the DVD X Copy website, although it was previously believed to be no longer sold or supported.

The WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act, is a part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 U.S. law. It has two major portions, Section 102, which implements the requirements of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and Section 103, which arguably provides additional protection against the circumvention of copy prevention systems and prohibits the removal of copyright management information.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

<i>Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.</i> Lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States

Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. is a lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Power Ventures Inc., a third-party platform, collected user information from Facebook and displayed it on their own website. Facebook claimed violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. According to Facebook, Power Ventures Inc. made copies of Facebook's website during the process of extracting user information. Facebook argued that this process causes both direct and indirect copyright infringement. In addition, Facebook alleged this process constitutes a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). Finally, Facebook also asserted claims of both state and federal trademark infringement, as well as a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

<i>DVD Copy Control Assn, Inc. v. Bunner</i>

DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner was a lawsuit that was filed by the DVD Copy Control Association in California, accusing Andrew Bunner and several others of misappropriation of trade secrets under California's implementation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The case went through several rounds of appeals and was last heard and decided in February 2004 by the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District.

<i>DVD Copy Control Assn, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc.</i>

DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc., 176 Cal. App. 4th 697 is a legal case heard by the California Court of Appeal concerning breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It discusses incorporation by reference regarding a supplemental document that was not part of the written license agreement between the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that defendant was bound to the entire contract, including the supplemental document.

<i>RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Assn, Inc.</i> 2009 court case

RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc., 641 F. Supp. 2d 913 (2009), is a United States District Court case involving RealNetworks, the movie studios and DVD Copy Control Association regarding the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims on the manufacturing and distribution of RealDVD, and a breach of license agreement. The district court concluded that RealNetworks violated the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA when the DVD copying software RealDVD bypasses the copy protection technologies of DVD.

<i>321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc.</i>

321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 1085, is a district court case brought by 321 Studios seeking declaratory judgment from the court that their DVD ripping software, i.e. DVD Copy Plus and DVD X Copy do not violate the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), or, in the alternative, that the DMCA is unconstitutional because Congress exceeded its enumerated powers, these provisions are unconstitutionally vague and/or violate the First Amendment.

<i>Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.</i> US legal case

Ouellette v. Viacom, No. 9:10-cv-00133; 2011 WL 1882780, found the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) did not create liability for service providers that take down non-infringing works. This case limited the claims that can be filed against service providers by establishing immunity for service providers' takedown of fair use material, at least from grounds under the DMCA. The court left open whether another "independent basis of liability" could serve as legal grounds for an inappropriate takedown.

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung 710 F.3d 1020 No. 10-55946, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which seven film studios including Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney and Twentieth Century Fox sued Gary Fung, the owner of isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc., for contributory infringement of their copyrighted works. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of United States District Court for the Central District of California that the services and websites offered by isoHunt Web Technologies allowed third parties to download infringing copies of Columbia's works. Ultimately, Fung had "red flag knowledge" of the infringing activity on his systems, and therefore IsoHunt was held ineligible for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act § 512(c) safe harbor.

<i>Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.</i>

Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 724, was a United States district court case in which the visual artist Sheila Wolk brought suit against Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Photobucket.com, Inc. for copyright infringement. Users uploaded Wolk's work to Photobucket, a user-generated content provider, which had a revenue sharing agreement with Kodak that permitted users to use Kodak Gallery to commercially print (photofinish) images from Photobucket's site—including unauthorized copies of Wolk's artwork.

<i>RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc.</i>

RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 WL 127311, was a copyright law case of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, over the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and whether those provisions are violated by a service that enables Internet users to circumvent the copyright protection controls used by a streaming platform.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F. 3d 429 (2nd Cir., 2001).
  2. ↑ "Informal DeCSS History Timeline" . Retrieved November 11, 2011.
  3. 1 2 3 Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D.N.Y., 2000).
  4. ↑ "Movie Studios File DVD Hack Suit". Reuters. January 14, 2000. Retrieved October 13, 2011.
  5. ↑ Howe, Jeff (February 1, 2000). "Fade to Black The Motion Picture Association Shuts Down Crypto Research". Village Voice. Retrieved October 13, 2011.
  6. ↑ Jones, Dow (January 15, 2000). "Hollywood Studios Join Legal Battle To Stop DVD Copying". NY Times. Retrieved October 10, 2011.
  7. ↑ Mihet, Harry (February 14, 2002). "University City Studies, Inc. v. Corley: The Constitutional Underpinnings of Fair Use Remain an Open Question". Duke L & Tech Rev.
  8. ↑ "Court Tells Web Sites to Remove Code". NY Times. January 24, 2000. Retrieved October 10, 2011.
  9. ↑ Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 82 F. Supp. 2d 211 (S.D.N.Y., 2000).
  10. ↑ Menard, Brian (2001). "And the shirt off your back: Universal City Studios, DECSS, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act". Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal. 27: 371–408.
  11. 1 2 3 Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y., 2000).
  12. 1 2 "NFL, musicians urge court to uphold DeCSS ruling". CNet. February 28, 2001. Retrieved October 17, 2011.
  13. 1 2 Poulsen, Kevin (March 3, 2001). "DeCSS makes the funny pages". The Register. Retrieved October 17, 2011.
  14. 1 2 Mark A. Lemley; et al. (2011). Software and internet law (4th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. ISBN   978-0-7355-8915-5.
  15. ↑ Hill v. Colorado, 530 US 703 (2000).
  16. ↑ Leyden, John (July 4, 2002). "2600 withdraws Supreme Court appeal in DeCSS case". The Register. Retrieved October 13, 2011.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.