[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@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. 

Whether he can be compelled or not is moot, since (if I read
that ruling correctly) he already _has_ said as much.  Once
you have spoken, you no longer have that 5th amendment protection,

At the time LiVid posted DeCSS, Pavlovich knew that DeCSS "was derived from CSS algorithms" and that reverse engineering these algorithms was probably illegal.  

Now, as far as I am concerned reverse engineering is
_not_ probably illegal, but I am speaking about Pavlovich's
actions under the circumstances as he believed them to be.
He believed it to be illegal, but went ahead anyway.  This
shows intent.

... of course, at that point the defense should characterize
this as a form of protest, which might be protection . . .

Nonetheless, the situation -- as he himself believed it
to be -- was one where he was intentionally furthering
an illegal act. (Which was really all I was saying ...)