Thursday, January 2, 2003

Justice O'Connor Stays California Ruling in Former Student's Encryption Case By VINCENT KIERNAN A U.S. Supreme Court justice has temporarily blocked a lower court's ruling in favor of a former computer-engineering student at Purdue University who published online a program that unscrambles encrypted DVD's. The action, by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, suspends a recent decision by the California Supreme Court. It ruled in November that the student, Matthew Pavlovich, could not be sued in California for publishing the program because he is not a resident of the state and because his postings did not specifically seek to harm California businesses (The Chronicle, November 26, 2002). But the DVD Copy Control Association, the California organization that had sued Mr. Pavlovich, appealed on December 26 to Justice O'Connor for a stay, a legal order suspending the decision. Justice O'Connor, who is the justice designated to receive such appeals from California and other parts of the ninth federal judicial circuit, granted a temporary stay the same day. Mr. Pavlovich has until today to file briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of whether Justice O'Connor should grant a longer stay that would remain in effect until the full court decides whether to review the case. To grant that stay, Justice O'Connor would have to find both that the full court probably would overturn the California decision and that the DVD industry would suffer irreparable harm without the stay. Officials from the DVD Copy Control Association, a group representing the entertainment industry, could not be immediately reached for comment. But Allonn E. Levy, Mr. Pavlovich's attorney, said that the temporary stay is "fairly routine." The original lawsuit, filed in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County, accused Mr. Pavlovich and several dozen other defendants of harming the movie, computer, and electronic industries in California in violation of copyright and trade-secret laws because the Web sites the defendants operated had posted or linked to the code, which deciphers the DVD "content-scrambling system." The encryption system is designed to limit the copying of DVD's. Mr. Pavlovich's backers include the Student Press Law Center, which defends students' free-speech rights. Officials of the organization argued that if the DVD association won the case, students everywhere would be reluctant to publish on the Internet because they could be sued by companies or organizations in distant states. The trial court and an appeals court rejected Mr. Pavlovich's argument that he was immune from suit in California, but the California Supreme Court agreed with him, noting that he did not live in the state and had not "intentionally targeted California." Earlier in December, the DVD association failed to persuade the California Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling in the case. Although the court's original ruling was 4 to 3, the vote against reconsidering the decision was 6 to 1. Robert Lystad, a media lawyer in Washington, said the California Supreme Court's decision is consistent with two other recent court decisions on the issue of which courts have jurisdiction over individuals for their online postings. In July, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that an Alabama scholar could not enforce a libel ruling from her state after a Minnesota scholar criticized her in an online newsgroup. On December 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that two Connecticut newspapers could not be sued in Virginia over their online postings; Mr. Lystad represented the newspapers in that case. The decisions make the legal-jurisdiction rules for online activity consistent with the rules for legal jurisdiction more generally, he said. "The Internet does not change the world, at least where personal jurisdiction is involved." By contrast, Australia's High Court decided last month that a Melbourne businessman can sue New York-based Dow Jones & Company in the Australian courts for defamation over its characterization of him in the October 2002 issue of Barron's magazine, which appeared online as well as in print. Mr. Levy, Mr. Pavlovich's lawyer, called that decision "outrageous" and "out of the norm" for how nations have approached legal issues relating to online content. Background articles from The Chronicle: California Supreme Court Rejects Movie Group's Suit Against Former Purdue U. Student (11/26/2002) Minnesota Court Rules in an Online-Libel Case (8/2/2002) Easy-to-print version E-mail this article

Christian student group sues Rutgers after university revokes its recognition 3 professors at Oregon college resign in protest of dean's dismissal University releases annual list of banned words and phrases Justice O'Connor stays California ruling in former student's encryption case Michigan State asks students to turn off their computers over winter break