RE: [dvd-discuss] Matt Pavlovich WINS in Cal. Supreme Court

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 25 Nov 2002 at 15:13, Richard Hartman wrote:

Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Matt Pavlovich WINS in Cal. Supreme Court
Date sent:      	Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:13:33 -0800
From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Copies to:      	<owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> If he assumed the code was illegal, then I would hold 
> him liable because he intentionally aided an act that 
> he, himself, thought was not legal.  

But it is up to the courts to decide these question based upon FACTS not 
thoughts, not suppositions, not vague inferences.

> 
> If he assumed that the code was legal (due to it's reverse 
> engineered origin) then I would not hold him liable.
> 

Since one cannot know what he thought at the time and by the 5th amendment he 
cannot be compelled to divulge that even if he remembers correctly or 
incorrectly, then this is a Reasonable doubt beyond a moral certainty. He had 
no reason to believe otherwise.....DVDCCA had it all locked up remember. DVDs 
are all over the place. Everyone is interested in them There's Jim Taylor's 
book out...all sorts of infor available...so why not RE? As for this cracking 
rhetorical crap....after the facts hystrionics that seemingly impresses Ca. 
Sup. Court Justices.(remember Rose Bird! what goes around comes around)

> Unfortunately it sounds like he has already stated that
> he thought the code was "probably illegal"...
> 

Agreed...if he cannot determine that is IS or ISN"T simply then the law has 
failed. Previously ignorance of the law was no defense...if the laws continue 
to become so obscure the maybe the "so what does that mean Judge...Oh..you 
expect me to tell YOU?" defense should be created..

> 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman 
> hartman@onetouch.com 
> 
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW! 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 2:34 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Cc: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Matt Pavlovich WINS in Cal. Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> It's a win but not a WIN as you point out... 
> 
> From the Judgement: 
> 
> "In addition, we are not confronted with a situation where the plaintiff has no
> other forum to pursue its claims and therefore do not address that situation.
> DVD CCA has the ability and resources to pursue Pavlovich in another forum such
> as Indiana or Texas. Our decision today does not foreclose it from doing so.
> Pavlovich may still face the music-just not in California." 
> 
> From the dissent. THey still buy the BS about trade secret approproation by
> "improper reverse engineering" 
> 
> DVD CCA immediately filed suit in California superior court against 
> defendant Matthew Pavlovich, 20 other named individuals, and 500 Does for 
> misappropriation of trade secrets. The complaint alleges the following: As early
> as October 25, 1999, Jon Johansen, a resident of Norway, posted on the Internet
> a computer program, dubbed DeCSS, that defeats CSS encryption. DeCSS was derived
> by -willfully 'hacking' and/or improperly reverse engineering software created
> by- a CSS licensee. Around the time Johansen posted the DeCSS program, the same
> information appeared on a Web site -operated by-Pavlovich. The defendants who
> posted or provided Web site links to this information knew or should have known
> DeCSS was derived from the misappropriation of proprietary information, because
> DeCSS was specifically designed to defeat CSS and was aimed at infringing movie
> copyrights by permitting the "pirating" of movies on DVD's. 
> 
> <snip> 
> 
> He knew CSS was a trade secret, available only by a 
> license his LiViD project had specifically declined to obtain. He also assumed
> the DeCSS source code posted on the LiViD Web site had been derived by illegal
> means, and was an infringement of the proprietary information represented by
> CSS. DVD CCA's lawsuit, alleging that the Web site posting was an infringement
> of the CSS trade secret, thus " 'arises out of or has a substantial connection
> with' " his conduct aimed at this state. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th 434, 452.) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  "James S. Tyre" <jstyre@jstyre.com> 
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 
> 
> 
> 11/25/2002 01:57 PM 
> Please respond to dvd-discuss 
> 
> 
> 
>         To:        dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 
>         cc:         
>         Subject:        [dvd-discuss] Matt Pavlovich WINS in Cal. Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S100809.PDF
> 
> or
> 
> http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C038912.DOC
> 
> 4-3 decision today, it does not get closer, but a win's a win, whether 4-3 or
> 7-0.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> James S. Tyre                               mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
> Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
> 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
> Co-founder, The Censorware Project             http://censorware.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>