Judge Dismisses Digital-Copyright Lawsuit by Princeton Professor
By ANDREA L. FOSTER
Trenton, N.J.
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit Wednesday that a Princeton University computer scientist and his research team had filed against the recording industry and the U.S. Justice Department over the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, saying there was no "real controversy" between the litigants.
In the lawsuit, the computer scientist, Edward W. Felten, had asked the judge to grant him and his research team immunity from prosecution under the digital copyright law and to declare the act unconstitutional. The researchers had said they feared being sued by the recording industry and prosecuted by the Justice Department under the act if they published their research describing how to break an encryption technology called a watermark that restricts access to digital music.
The act includes a provision that makes it a criminal or civil offense to bypass copyright protections on digital data.
Judge Garrett E. Brown Jr., of federal district court in Trenton, N.J., said that none of the defendants in the case had sued the researchers, announced their intention to sue them, or prevented them from publishing their findings. Therefore, he said, it would be "premature and speculative" for him to rule on whether the digital copyright law was relevant to the Princeton researchers.
Aside from the Justice Department, the other defendants in the case were the Recording Industry Association of America, the Secure Digital Music Initiative Foundation, and the Verance Corporation. The digital-music foundation is a group of technology companies working to prevent electronic dissemination of copyrighted music, and Verance designed the watermark that Mr. Felten was able to decode.
"The defendants say there is no dispute or controversy, and the plaintiffs seem unwilling to accept that," Judge Brown said after pointedly questioning lawyers for the plaintiffs and defendants. The judge later remarked, "I agree with the defense that the only controversy is the judiciability of this case."
He said the scientists' statements that their research into computer security was "chilled" by a threatening letter that they had received from the recording industry were "subjective." And he said it was outside his authority to rule on the constitutionality of the digital copyright law.
At the end of an hourlong explanation that led up to his decision, Judge Brown said of the computer scientists, "They liken themselves to Galileo." But in reality, he said, they are "modern-day Don Quixotes threatened by windmills that they mistake for giants."
Mr. Felten said he would reserve comment on the judge's ruling until today.
Robin Gross, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is arguing the case for Mr. Felten, said her group was likely to appeal the ruling. "We're disappointed by the court decision," she said. The foundation, based in San Francisco, promotes civil liberties in the electronic environment.
David E. Kendall, a lawyer for the recording industry, said of Judge Brown's ruling: "Let the decision speak for itself."
Background articles from The Chronicle: