Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CA Supreme Court Saves LiViD, Pavlovich

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the for-now-anyhow dept.

The Courts 251

joebeone writes "The California Supreme Court has suprisingly ruled that Matthew Pavlovich is not within their jurisdiction in the DVD-CCA's suit against his posting of DeCSS in relation to the development of the LiViD DVD player for open operating systems. What's surprising? It's surprising that they held that his posting of DeCSS was not actionable... (however the use of the program by users to circumvent CSS could be under the DMCA)."

cancel ×

251 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is excellent news (3, Insightful)

fahrvergnugen (228539) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756535)

I couldn't be happier to hear this. Congratulations to Pavlovich and his legal team.

This is another important step on the long road to overturning the DMCA.

Indeed (2, Flamebait)

Akardam (186995) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756577)

Sometimes, there are some sane Californians.

Re:This is excellent news (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756645)

Sorry this has ZERO to do with anything regarding the DMCA. What it helps is that the big California Industries may have to actually argure on the merits of their case then winning by dragging people across country who can ill afford to fight a court battle in a distant state. But even then the court rules farily narrowly indicating that had circumstances been slightly different they would have probably ruled differently.

Re:This is excellent news (5, Insightful)

DDX_2002 (592881) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756670)

This is another important step on the long road to overturning the DMCA.

No... no, actually it's nothing of the sort. As the majority's concluding words said, Pavlovich may still have to face the music, just not in California. The only way you can overturn the DMCA is to actually get the courts to accept a challenge of the validity of the DMCA. The victory here is precisely the opposite - a refusal of the California courts to even consider the case. It's not really a victory of any kind for anyone.

All that happened was that the CalSuprCt. took a look at the evidence and the arguments by the DVD-CCA for why the California courts should have jurisdiction and found that it all came down to one thing: foreseeability of harm to California companies' economic interests. The CalSuprCt. took a look at US Supreme Court precedent and said you had to show something more than mere foreseeability of harm to ground personal jurisdiction in that state.

Things they did not say:

1. That this ruling was broadly applicable.

2. That the DMCA was invalid.

3. That Pavlovich hadn't broken the DMCA.

4. That Pavlovich couldn't be sued in Texas.

5. That the DVD-CCA couldn't have shown jurisdiction if they'd shown some other evidence of intention other than just foreseeability of harm.

When the Courts throw words like "novel", "unique", and "unprecedented" around in describing the facts of the case, it means the entire judgment you're reading is probably never going to come up again. When they expressly state that they are deciding a matter "extremely narrowly", it means they don't want it to ever come up again.

Bottom line: the DVD-CCA can still go after Pavlovich in Texas or possibly Indiana. However, given the costs of litigating in a far away jurisdiction, it's still a victory and the DVD-CCA may give up or come up with a face-saving settlement.

Re:This is excellent news (0, Offtopic)

fahrvergnugen (228539) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756691)

Thanks.

I was in the rare position of hitting the site in a 1st-post capacity, so I decided I'd only read the headline and post something moronic but in-line with the /. article and at the same time say absolutely nothing of any worth. The point of the exercise was to see if the seals would clap loudly for any old drivel.

Says something about the /. community that I'm at +4 (at the time of this writing) instead of modded into oblivion, and you're not at +5 like you should be. Your post is interesting, insightful, and informative, and mine's just parroting back bullshit.

Re:This is excellent news (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756726)

What the other guy said (in response to the above post). This is a solid +5 post because it covers the meat of this issue. Being out of the local jurisdiction of this California court is a big plus for Pavlovich, but it does not mean the DMCA is any weaker for wear. We, the people of the United States (and our allies against the DMCA and its doppelgangers abroad), have much work ahead of us in regaining the freedoms which have been stolen from us by the judiciary and the Congress.

Re:This is excellent news (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756922)

A careful read of the majority opinion shows clearly that Pavlovich won nothing. What the court ruled was that the DVD-CCA hadn't convinced them that the lawsuit should be filed in California just because some movies are made in California. The DVD-CCA can go ahead and sue him in Texas without any problem.

Of real interest was the dissenting opinion. The dissenting judge not only thought that Pavlovich's knowledge that movies are associated with California was reason enough to have the suit tried in California, he mentions "open source" supporters disparagingly. More interestingly, in page 7 of that dissenting opinion (page 28 of the entire opinion), the judge expresses amazement that Pavlovich insists that anyone who buys a DVD has the right to make a backup copy for personal use. Is "fair use" dead?

Re:This is excellent news (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756822)

Of course you're happy to hear this. Further proof that open sores developers are criminally minded IT-stealing copyright-infringing software terrorists.

Re:This is excellent news (1)

ifreakshow (613584) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756923)

I am really happy to hear this, I was in the same fraternity as Pav @ Purdue and he is a great guy that was getting the shaft. Down with the DMCA.

What about Canada here? (5, Interesting)

jpt.d (444929) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756542)

I have heard lots and lots of this stuff for the US but what about Canada?

Can I play DVDs under Linux in Canada with LiViD legally?

On another topic that other law that was mentioned here last week I think it was, would help the use of the program in the US i think

Re:What about Canada here? (5, Insightful)

jon787 (512497) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756581)

Who cares if its 'legal' or not. If you aren't using to steal movies (or view stolen ones) then go do it anyway. It's called civil disobediance, it can be a very powerful force.

Re:What about Canada here? (5, Interesting)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756733)

Damn straight. 'Legal' doesn't mean 'Right'. It means that the court and the government and even large corporations think it should be allowed. 'Illegal' means the opposite of that, of course.

I like to think about what an ant colony would be like if one ant out of the millions was 'persecuted' by someone with a magnifying glass and as a result the rest of the ants avoided leaving the nest. What good could they accomplish if they were so easily deterred?

In reality, ants accomplish amazing feats just by sheer number, tenacity, and to a lesser extent strength.

Yes, friends, humans should be more like ants. :)

Re:What about Canada here? (5, Insightful)

jpt.d (444929) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756749)

Civil disobedience also means that you are willing to accept the consequences of your illegal or potentially illegal activities. Would I be willing to get a fine or go to the bad place for playing a DVD on Linux - hell no. Not that I would get caught anyways.

Re:What about Canada here? (2)

fferreres (525414) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756896)

"Would I be willing to get a fine or go to the bad place for playing a DVD on Linux"

The fine could be a good topic to make a tshirt, a personal one with a stamped version of the very same fine and a quotes like:

* AND I DON'T CARE!
* I'll KEEP DOING IT
* PAID $500, SAVED THOUTHANDS!
* (add your own) :)

Re:What about Canada here? (5, Insightful)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756897)

Would I be willing to get a fine or go to the bad place for playing a DVD on Linux - hell no

You always have to weight the consequences with how strongly you feel.

What if kissing was illegal? Or dancing? You know in your heart it's not wrong to do either of those things. Would you risk kissing or dancing because you felt it was your right; because you wanted to make a statement?

WHAT?! (4, Funny)

Mmmrky (607987) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756915)

KISSING?! DANCING?!

You do realize this is /. right?

Re:What about Canada here? (2)

fferreres (525414) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756891)

"... and to a lesser extent strength"

Weren't the ants that could carry ten times their weights? Looks like a sine qua non feature to me :)

This is very OT, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756898)

"to a lesser extent strength"

??

For their size, ants are one of the strongest creatures on the planet.

Thank you, thank you folks... I'll be here all week.

Re:What about Canada here? (1)

UU7 (103653) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756841)

Umm, apparently HE cares if it's legal ?
not sure though.

Re:What about Canada here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756588)

IANAL, but I think so - to my knowledge the Canadian gov't has yet to pass any DMCA-like legislation, although there was a request for public input on the matter last year...

It would fall under standard copyright law, eg, you play it on any system you want.

Re:What about Canada here? (-1, Troll)

MoThugz (560556) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756589)

the rule also applies to Canada... because it is still under American rule and military protection.

Sheesh, do more reading before posting such silly questions.

Re:What about Canada here? (-1, Troll)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756657)

I don't know.....I mean Canada is already moving farther and farther toward the US system for everything else.

Re:What about Canada here? (2)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756739)

I don't know.....I mean Canada is already moving farther and farther toward the US system for everything else.

And oddly enough Canadian politics is starting to suck more, too. Doesn't anyone correlate these statistics anymore? ;)

Re:What about Canada here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756728)

Even if it was illegal, it won't matter if you do not do any harm. If you do not do harm, then the movie company doesn't have a claim against you.

If you rent a movie, it means that you paid for it, so then you have the right to view it, provided that whatever means you then use to view it, will not cause harm to the movie company concerned. So, the only way to get into trouble would be to rent a movie and then play it for public viewing and that would be wrong even if you used a MS Windoze PC to do it.

earlier hearing. (1)

erax0r (626272) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756549)

This reminds me of an early case back in september...Jon Carwell anyone?

Re:earlier hearing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756600)

I think I remember the case do you have a link to the hearings? I think it was involving the riaa as well.

Not Actionable? (4, Insightful)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756551)

What does this mean exactly? That Posting DeCSS to the internet isn't bad enough to be sued or whatever? Or is it something more specific to this case, like his posting to the internet doesn't put him under the jurisdiction of Cali courts?

Re:Not Actionable? (5, Informative)

Lionel Hutts (65507) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756584)

"Not actionable" would mean that it is legal: that doing it does not expose you to suit. That is not at all what the court held: it held only that the California courts do not have jurisdiction.

Par for the course for Slashdot reporting, I guess.

Re:Not Actionable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756633)

Dude, Lionel Hutz died years ago. Who do you think you are fooling?

Re:Not Actionable? (4, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756734)

Nope, if you actually read the ruling it says that the court refused to allow posting DeCSS from outside of California onto a server outside of California to be actionable in a California court simply because most of the movie industry and the company the oversees CSS is in California. Not that it is legal to do so, just that California state courts are the wrong place you if you aren't from California.

This has nothing to do with the DMCA. That's a federal law, so it doesn't apply here. If you want to chase somebody using the DMCA, you file a case in federal court. California state courts are the wrong jurisdiction altogether.

This is nothing but a lawyer's mistake, not a sign that courts are striking down the DMCA. Don't /. into more than it is.

Microsoft has a Monopoly because of such rulings (5, Insightful)

C_To (628122) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756555)

I find it disgusting that the only legitatment DVD player for PCs is for Windows, and that there is no open source alternative, for those who don't wish to spend money for a bloated operating system that makes my purchases obsolete in a week's time.

So how are we to play DVDs in our *nix Operating systems? We're not, we're suppose to buy Windows, and shell out extra money for a DVD player. This makes a purchase of a DVD drive useless for an open source based PC.

Re:Microsoft has a Monopoly because of such ruling (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756576)

Get off your fat ass and write your own!

Legally? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756616)

See DMCA

Re:Legally? (2)

EvanED (569694) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756637)

First, the DMCA is of dubious constitutinality (that aspect has not been properly tested in courts).

Second, see the ruling... the ruling SUPPORTS the ability to create/distribute such software.

Re:Legally? (3, Insightful)

C_To (628122) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756678)

Unfortuneatly its a long way and it has not ruled that the use of DeCSS is legal.

My point is I paid for a DVD drive. I also paid to watch a movie unlimited times (hence the purchase of a DVD movie on a disc). However I am restricted at watching the movie legally, because I use an open source Operating System. With copy protection, we are slowly losing our rights as a group of consumers, for the interests of the movie industry that claims they have lost money. But their estimated profits for the year are just that, estimates. Piracy has been a blamed since the invention of video tape (in terms of video) for the industry not achieving these estimated figures.

Re:Legally? (2)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756779)

Nope. It just said creating/distributing such software outside of California doesn't violate Calfifornia law.

DVD CCA stood in the wrong line. They got California, they need to go see Indiana or Texas.

Re:Microsoft has a Monopoly because of such ruling (5, Interesting)

chill (34294) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756667)

There are DVD players for Linux. The problem arises when you realize the DVD consortium wants a license fee ($10,000, I think) for each type of "product" such as a software player.

In theory, someone could pay the $10K and release a closed-source plug-in for Ogle/MPlayer/Xine. However, I'm not sure if there are per-unit fees associated. There probably are and I don't think the consortium makes allowances for free software.

Re:Microsoft has a Monopoly because of such ruling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756757)

Actually, one of the strong points of opens source software is its free nature.

If you do something wrong and cause harm to another party, then that party has a claim against you. If you contravene a patent and sell software using that patent, then the harmed party has a very strong case against you, but if you give the code away for free and do not profit from it at all, then the case of the harmed party becomes much, much, much weaker.

You are still wrong, you still contravened the patent, but you did not profit from it, leaving the patent holder with almost no way to claim anything from you.

This is the real strength of Free Software...

Re:Microsoft has a Monopoly because of such ruling (5, Informative)

chill (34294) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756764)

I looked it up: (http://www.dvdfourm.org) and there are NO per-unit fees. Buy book, sign the NDA ($10,000) and someone could legally release a binary-only DECSS plugin. Yes, it could be given away freely -- just no source.

Personally, I think RedHat, Lindows & the others should do this for the people who just want to play their movies without getting into religious debates over licenses.

Hell, $10,000 isn't lunch money if spread between SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat, UnitedLinux, IBM, etc.

-Charles

CSS plug-in (2, Insightful)

dwtinkle (194997) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756556)

I do believe that I have seen a CSS plug-in for Xine, is that also illegal? I really would like to watch my DVDs on my laptop when I'm on the road. But with out a proper CSS plug-in am I going to be breaking the law, every time I watch Fight Club?

Re:CSS plug-in (2)

ksw2 (520093) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756572)

According to the MPAA's gestapo, yes. This is the crux of the DMCA issue as it pertains to the use of your own materials.

Re:CSS plug-in (1)

mdechene (607874) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756591)

You're probably breaking the law every time you watch fight club due to the Patriot Act. Isn't there something about watching subversive movies and exporting all those of jewish nationality to special camps?

The Art of Cunniligus (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756557)

Hey, I have a lot of respect for all you guys who like to eat pussy because there are too few of you out there. And I'm not the only woman who says this. Furthermore, some of you guys who are giving it the old college try are not doing too well, so maybe this little lesson will help you out. When a woman finds a man who gives good head, she's found a treasure she's not going to let go of him too quickly. This is one rare customer and she knows it. She won't even tell her girlfriends about it or that guy will become the most popular man in town. So, remember, most guys can fuck, and those who can usually do it satisfactorily, but the guy who gives good head, he's got it made.

Most women are shy about their bodies. Even if you've got the world's most gorgeous woman in bed with you, she's going to worry about how you like her body. Tell her it's beautiful, tell her which parts you like best, tell her anything, but get her to trust you enough to let you down between her legs. Now stop and look at what you see.
Beautiful, isn't it?

There is nothing that makes a woman more unique than her pussy.

I know. I've seen plenty of them. They come in all different sizes, colors and shapes; some are tucked inside like a little girl's cunnie and some have thick luscious lips that come out to greet you. Some are nested in brushes of fur and others are covered with transparent fuzz. Appreciate your woman's unique qualities and tell her what makes her special. Women are a good deal more verbal than men, especially during love-making. They also respond more to verbal love, which means, the more you talk to her, the easier it will be to get her off. So all the time you're petting and stroking her beautiful pussy, talk to her about it.

Now look at it again.

Gently pull the lips apart and look at her inner lips, even lick them if you want to. Now spread the tops of her pussy up until you can find her clit. Women have clits in all different sizes, just like you guys have different sized cocks. It doesn't mean a thing as far as her capacity for orgasm. All it means is more of her is hidden underneath her foreskin.

Whenever you touch a woman's pussy, make sure your finger is wet. You can lick it or moisten it with juices from inside her. Be sure, by all means, to wet it before you touch her clit because it doesn't have any juices of its own and it's extremely sensitive. Your finger will stick to it if it's dry and that hurts. But you don't want to touch her clit anyway. You have to work up to that. Before she becomes aroused, her clit is too delicate to be handled.

Approach her pussy slowly. Women, even more so than men, love to be teased. The inner part of her thigh is her most tender spot. Lick it, kiss it, make designs on it with the tip of your tongue. Come dangerously close to her pussy, then float away. Make her anticipate it.

Now lick the crease where her leg joins her pussy. Nuzzle your face into her bush. Brush your lips over her slit without pressing down on it to further excite her. After you've done this to the point where your lady is bucking up from her seat and she's straining to get more of you closer to her, then put your lips right on top of her slit.

Kiss her, gently, then harder. Now use your tongue to separate her pussy lips and when she opens up, run your tongue up and down between the layers of pussy flesh. Gently spread her legs more with your hands. Everything you do with a woman you're about to eat must be done gently.

Tongue-fuck her. This feels divine. It also teases the hell out of her because by now she wants some attention given to her clit. Check it out. See if her clit has gotten hard enough to peek out of its covering. If so, lick it. If you can't see it, it might still be waiting for you underneath. So bring your tongue up to the top of her slit and feel for her clit. You may barely experience its presence. But even if you can't feel the tiny pearl, you can make it rise by licking the skin that covers it. Lick hard now and press into her skin.

Gently pull the pussy lips away and flick your tongue against the clit, hood covered or not. Do this quickly. This should cause her legs to shudder. When you sense she's getting up there toward orgasm, make your lips into an O and take the clit into your mouth. Start to suck gently and watch your lady's face for her reaction. If she can handle it, begin to suck harder. If she digs it, suck even harder. Go with her. If she lifts her pelvis into the air with the tension of her rising orgasm, move with her, don't fight her. Hang on, and keep your hot mouth on her clit. Don't let go. That's what she'll be saying too: 'Don't stop. Don't ever stop!'

There's a reason for that - most men stop too soon. Just like with cock sucking, this is something worth learning about and worth learning to do well. I know a man who's a lousy fuck, simply lousy, but he can eat pussy like nobody I know and he never has trouble getting a date. Girls are falling all over him.

But back to your pussy eating session...There's another thing you can do to intensify your woman's pleasure. You can finger-fuck her while she's enjoying your clit-licking talents. Before, during or after. She'll really like it. In addition to the erogenous zones surrounding her clit, a woman has another extremely sensitive area at the roof of her vagina. This is what you rub up against when you're fucking her. Well, since your cock is pretty far away from your mouth, your fingers will have to do the fucking.

Take two fingers. One is too skinny and three is too wide and therefore can't get deep enough. Make sure they're wet so you don't irritate her skin. Slide them inside, slowly at first, then a little faster. Fuck her with them rhythmically. Speed up only when she does. Listen to her breathing.

She'll let you know what to do. If you're sucking her clit and finger-fucking her at the same time, you're giving her far more stimulation than you would be giving her with your cock alone. So you can count on it that she's getting high on this. If there's any doubt, check her out for symptoms. Each woman is unique. You may have one whose nipples get hard when she's excited or only when she's having an orgasm. Your girl might flush red or begin to tremble. Get to know her symptoms and you'll be a more sensitive lover.

When she starts to have an orgasm, for heaven's sakes, don't let go of that clit. Hang in there for the duration. When she starts to come down from the first orgasm, press your tongue along the underside of the clit, leaving your lips covering the top. Move your tongue in and out of her cunt. If your fingers are inside, move them a little too, gently though, things are extremely sensitive just now.

If you play your cards right, you'll get some multiple orgasms this way. A woman stays excited for a full hour after she's had an orgasm. Do you realize the full impact of that information? The potential? One woman was clocked at 56 orgasms at one sitting. Do you know what effect you would have on a woman you gave 56 orgasms to? She'd be yours as long as you wanted her.

The last advice I have for you is this: After you've made her come, made her your slave by giving her the best head she's ever had, don't leave her alone just yet. Talk to her, stroke her body, caress her breasts. Keep making love to her quietly until she's come all the way down. A man can get off and go to sleep in the same breath and feel no remorse, no sense of loss. But a woman by nature requires some sensitivity from her lover in those first few moments after sex.

Oral sex can be the most exciting sexual experiences you can have. But it's what you make it. Take your time, practice often, pay attention to your lover's signals, and most of all, enjoy yourself.

The G-Spot

This does exist. And in over half of the women out there, it works better than anything else you can do to cause a strong, prolonged orgasm. The original name is the Grafenberg spot, after a doctor, Earnest Grafenberg, who documented the area (which may have been known by people here and there throughout history) in the fifties.

This "spot" is a small "mound" of tissue inside the vagina, between a penny and quarter in size, which responds to being pressed upon. It's almost certainly not the skenes glands, (which are located around the urethra, which is behind the G-spot area), as has been suggested by a few people. In fact, the G-Spot is the tissue in that raised area of the vagina, which has a higher concentration of sexual nerves, and produces hormones similar to those made by the male's prostate gland.

A sort of map to the area -- Imagine your lover lying on her back, legs spread. Your position is between her legs. You would slide a finger inside her vagina, palm up. With your finger straight back, middle finger is best, you would curve it toward yourself, gently, as if you were gesturing to someone to "come here". In doing so, the area you press on should be pretty near her "G-Spot" area. If you know enough to follow the urethra (the tube that leads from the bladder to where the pee comes out), along the inside of her vagina, you may feel a slight swelling (if she's excited) at the point where the g-spot is.

She must be excited, especially if either you or she is new to the g-spot, for the g-spot to have any real effect at all. It's not the ideal area for getting your lover aroused.

But when she is excited, this area (more often than not) is the best way to bring her to orgasm. You work your way back to it gradually, teasing her (typically, this works best) with your fingers, slowly and gently. It's easier to hit the right area with two fingers, but this may not be comfortable for her, depending on how "tight" she is at that moment. When you have your fingers around the right area, try gently pressing, not too quickly. The movement should be fairly rhythmic. It's typically best if you're licking her clitoris (or near it, depending on the woman) at the same time...don't make a big deal out of the "quest", this will often make her feel self-conscious, or distracted. The licking should seem to be the primary activity.

When you find the right area, she should respond by getting more excited. Most of the vagina's inside surface isn't really that sexually sensitive, believe it or not...most of the excitement of randomly inserting fingers is more psychological than from the actual stimulation.

While more complicated techniques work with some women, some of the time, the best basic technique, upon finding the g-spot, is to continue to slowly, rhythmically press on it, while licking her clitoris (for a few women, the labia (lips) are sensitive to licking, too).

This should cause her to build up to an orgasm.

A G-Spot orgasm is different (always, when it works at all) than any other kind women have. It is possible, with some women, to have different qualities and kinds of orgasms from vaginal, clitoral, anal, and even breast stimulation...but with other women, those kinds of orgasms are all pretty much the same. But the G-Spot orgasm not only feels different; it also causes her body to react in a different way.

First, it often causes a "push out" orgasm. The area around, or "above" (farther inside, that is) your fingers seems to swell up or to contract toward the opening of her vagina.

If you find the right combination of pushing back when this happens, and slacking off to let it push out, you can cause (in perhaps half of the women) her orgasm to continue happening, long after normal ones would have subsided. In some women you can even keep her at a "plateau" (raised level) of sexual excitement, like a prolonged orgasm (or a little less than one) afterward, building up to an even bigger climax.

That brings me to another important point; G-Spot orgasms sometimes causes a huge amount (relatively speaking) of lubrication (juices, wetness)...far more than even the most excited woman gets from "conventional" stimulation.

When that extra wetness combines with the push-out orgasm, you get actual ejaculation...like a guy, but much better tasting. The built up juices can shoot out in such volume that you, or she, may be afraid that she lost control of her bladder. That is (almost always) not what happened. The fear that she peed can be enhanced by the fact that the urethra is behind the g-spot, so that in rare cases the woman can sometimes get the feeling that she needs to pee, even though she does not.

In reality, in both men and women, enough sexual excitement prevents peeing, unless you try really hard. This is a built-in reflex, because urine is something of a spermicide. The "pee hard-on" that men get in the morning is partially his body taking advantage of this reflex, to keep him from accidentally wetting the bed with the urine that built up while he was sleeping.

Taste

Anyone who likes, say, coffee or beer should have no room to complain about the way most women taste. No, I don't mean it tastes like coffee or beer, genius...I mean that beer and coffee are, at best, acquired tastes...they are not naturally pleasant to a human being, no matter how much your addiction to one or both has convinced you otherwise. Most people, whether they remember it or not, had to learn to like the taste of beer/coffee, and had the desire to be Like the Adults to help them along. Well, I'd list taking pleasure in cunnilingus above drinking addictive beverages on the list of things that prove maturity. Aside from that, there's the fact that many people who give it an honest try genuinely enjoy the taste/smell.

Re:The Art of Cunniligus (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756732)

Finally, legit moderation at /.

Moderation Totals: Offtopic=1, Informative=1, Total=2.

It's a great day in Trollville!

Letters to Congress (2, Interesting)

mdechene (607874) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756559)

Kids,
1.) Read this [slashdot.org] .
2.) Change the name from me to you, my senator to yours.
3.) Mail it in
4.) ??? 5.) Profit.

Real Link is Here (4, Informative)

mdechene (607874) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756570)

Whoops. Should have previewed.

Here it is [pyrorobotics.com]

Contains Word Macro VIRUS!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756703)

NAV detected it right away. Nice try you SOB.

Its an Open Office Export, Nice Troll. (3, Informative)

mdechene (607874) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756717)

Now if NAV detects Open Office saved doc's as Viri, that's news

Re:Real Link is Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756718)

posting viruses is a form of terrorism

operation homeland security has detected you as an threat to national security.

you will be procecuted.

DeCSS is Dead (5, Interesting)

ksw2 (520093) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756560)

It's time people realized what DeCSS really is... proof of concept code. There is far better code (that actually works!) in the Ogle DVD player (Linux) that nobody seems to know about.

On the other hand, maybe we should keep it quiet.

Re:DeCSS is Dead (2)

jon787 (512497) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756603)

Yeah that software in question works really well. I use it with both Ogle and VideoLAN (I haven't decided which is better yet) and the only issue I had was with a damaged disk. I also have css-auth and it truely is proof of concept code, nothing more.

Re:DeCSS is Dead (1)

Evil Adrian (253301) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756608)

I think the point is that it isn't actionable -- proof of concept that you can post things without getting busted.

I am so happy that we have Supreme Courts that, for the most part, do a good job determining what is right. So far so good... shame about the rest of the gov't.

Re:DeCSS is Dead (2)

Neon Spiral Injector (21234) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756661)

Exactly, this is great. Software isn't illegal, perhaps you can use it in commiting a crime, like all the examples we've heard a million times (cars, butter knives, hemp rope, a little marmalade, you know). Now if watching a DVD that you bought is a crime, is another issue.

Re:DeCSS is Dead (4, Insightful)

bwt (68845) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756644)

Sure, everybody knows that. The litigation however was about DeCSS, which happened to be the first.

The decision today isn't even on the merits of DeCSS with respect to trade secret law. It is just a matter of who gets to decide. If you post something on the net in Texas/Indiana that allegedly causes damage to a trade secret in California, can you be taken to court there. The Court said "yes, but only if you target the damage toward California, and knowledge of the general industry that might be affected is not sufficient to meet this criteria".

So Pavlovich can defend his action in the 5th Circuit where the DVD-CCA can suck on Vault v Quaid which says even if state law prohibited reverse engineering, reverse engineering is legal because Federal copyight law preempts state law.

Ogle rocks! (2)

kir (583) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756755)

I really like ogle! Command line or gui! Suh-weet!

http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/groups/dvd/ [chalmers.se]

Or check out #ogle on irc.openprojects.net. They seem like really nice guys. I once mentioned to them it would be nice to be able to pass a command line option for full screen so I could make it stupid-easy for my wife and daughter to watch DVDs (you know... pushin 'f' is hard). They were very cool and said they'd add support in for that (CVS). I'm not sure if they've done it yet (I haven't checked), but their attitude towards my suggestion was very positive. Other projects are not nearly as cool about that (i.e. a player that starts with m).

It's a good app. It has no problems playing any of my DVDs (region 1 or 2). Cool.

but Ogle and FusionSoft DVD lives on? (5, Informative)

vinsci (537958) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756778)

The Ogle DVD Player home page is here [chalmers.se] .

For Windows, there's the full-featured FusionsSoft DVD Player which is described as published under the GPL license, but where is the source? The indicated home page [chez.com] of the project is constantly over its monthly bandwidth quota. The last version available seems to be from July, 2002, version 5.0.0.1.

The binaries for FusionSoft DVD Player can be found here [pctip.ch] . Gut again, since it's GPL, the sources should be somewhere. The program itself is multilingual, although you may have to do some german to download it and some french during the installation.

THIS IS JUST LIKE OPERATION FEAR CONDITION (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756565)

THIS IS JUST LIKE OPERATION FEAR CONDITION
http://www.areyouthinking.org/fearcondi tion/

Why in california court? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756574)

Why was this trial in California courts rather than the federal court system?

Oh well, at least in California there is precedent now that developing stuff that *may* be used for illegal purposes but isn't necessarially intended to is somewhat less scary.

Of course thats only half of it, if usage of the tools even for non-"illegal" purposes is still illegal. (I use "illegal" here to indicate real copyright infringement, not this dream corporations have that somehow the right to protect their creations from being copied also grants them the right to keep consumers from using the things they have purchased.)

Re:Why in california court? (2)

MacAndrew (463832) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756797)

Why indeed. Good question. I dunno. :)

This appears to be a small potatoes lawsuit. The plaintiff asked for an injunction and no money damages. Two theories: (1) the case likely did not meet the requirements for federal jurisdiction, which include like $75,000 in controversy or a federal statute that grants jurisdiction (I don't knoe how the DMCA is written on this point); or (2) state court is cheaper place to litigate, and this case was mostly symbolic anyway.

Re:Why in california court? (3, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756850)

It's always easier to sue where you are than have to send your lawyers to live in a hotel room in a distant state for a month. This is why any business you deal with online has a TOS that includes a choice of law clause that picks the state they're in, which means they get that home state advantage.

Re:Why in california court? (2)

MacAndrew (463832) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756911)

Well, actually that's different, that's venue. You can sue in federal court anywhere you want, subject to venue rules which like personal jurisdiction partly serve to prevent one party from unfairly inconveniencing the other by picking a random place to sue. Contracts frequently ask you to waive your venue and choice-of-law rights to litigate only in their neck of the woods. These clauses are not always enforceable.

Almost wherever you are, there's a handy federal court nearby, though certainly the state sysetems are larger. I think i saw somewhere that tha CA state system has more judges than the entire federal judiciary. That's part of why federal court limits is jurisdiction to more "significant" cases, along with $5 Social Security disputes...

A third reason might also be that plaintiff's lawyers were more experienced in state court, and so chose that forum. Unfortunately, CA could not reach the defendant, so they will be sending their lawyers somewhere if they bother to pursue this harassment lawsuit at all.

post near the top troll! mod up +5 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756583)

I would like to eat your penis! gimmie some of the goatse.cx [goatse.cx] action!

Time to move servers (3, Interesting)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756609)

My server is in CA, is yours?

so let me get this straight (3, Interesting)

vena (318873) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756612)

their posting the DeCSS code which they use in their dvd player is legal, but because users using their dvd player are using DeCSS, their users are violating the DMCA, thus criminals?

that doesn't sound like much of a leap forward.

Re:so let me get this straight (2)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756746)

Nope not even that. The DMCA has nothing to do with this at all, it's a federal law and we're talking about a CA state case. The CA Supreme Court simply ruled that California will hold you accountable for posting DeCSS unless you or your server are in their state. It says nothing about the Feds.

Moot? (5, Insightful)

FPhlyer (14433) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756613)

Is it just me, or does it seem like this whole lawsuit to stop DeCSS became a moot point the second the DeCSS code hit the net?

Once the code was published, Pandora's proverbial box was opened. They can never shove it out of view again.

Today, DeCSS based players abound aplenty. And there are rippers and other tools based around the code. Even if they win the case in court, they've lost in the court of real life.

Re:Moot? (3, Insightful)

ender81b (520454) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756682)

I'm guessing they are doing it now to serve as an 'example' the next time they release some sort of encoding.

They want to scare the people who might crack the code, of course I think userfriendly explained it the best [userfriendly.org] .

Re:Moot? Depends on the game. (2)

Guido69 (513067) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756701)

What's the point of the suit? Is it to make sure the secrets of CSS stay locked away? May be part of it, but I doubt that's all.

More likely, they're trying to send a message to serve as an example and ward off future crack attempts. That, and $$. DeCSS was distributed freely ergo they're not collecting any licensing fees. From their point of view, someone has to pay.

Court room transcript (3, Funny)

MoThugz (560556) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756621)

JUDGE: Would that you could render this extermination unnecessary by renouncing this method of illegal decryption!
Pavlovich: No, Your Honor, it cannot be. I don't think much of our profession, but, contrasted with respectability, it is comparatively honest. No, Your Honor, I shall live and die a Pirate King.
(SONG -- PIRATE KING)
Pavlovich: Oh, better far to live and die
Under the flightless bird I fly,
Than play a corporate raider's part
With a pirate head and a pirate heart.
Away to the cheating world go you,
Where pirates all are well-to-do;
But I'll be true to the song I sing,
And live and die a Pirate King.
For I am a Pirate King!
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King!
For I am a Pirate King!
SLASHDOTTERS:You are!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
Pavlovich:And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King.
SLASHDOTTERS:It is!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
(Inserted to avoid lameness filter.)
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
Pavlovich:When I sally forth to seek my prey
I help myself in a royal way.
I rip a few more flicks, it's true,
Than a well-bred hacker ought to do;
But many a hack with a first-class clone,
If he wants to call his warez his own,
Must manage somehow to get through
More lines of code than e'er I do,
For I am a Pirate King!
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King!
For I am a Pirate King!
SLASHDOTTERS:You are!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
Pavlovich:And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King.
SLASHDOTTERS:It is!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
(the lameness filter, to avoid, inserted.)
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
(exeunt.)

Re:Court room transcript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756697)

Why did someone bother to type all this in? How foolish to waste the time, one would think.

It appears, to me at least, to be akin to people throwing tomatoes at horse-less carriages yelling "Horse Hater!!!!!!"

I suppose pity is prudent in this case.

This is just barely a win -- a technicality (5, Insightful)

qodfathr (255387) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756631)

While I always hate to see soem "bad guy" get off on a technicality, here's a case where one of the good guys squeaked by for similar reasons.

The key to winning the case was that Pavlovich did not know that DVD CCA is based out of California (until after they sued him), and because he did not know this, certain legal tests fail, and he cannot be pursued as the suit was filed.

Yes, there were many other deep, legal issues, but thisone appears to be the main reason.

Maybe he learned something from Bill Gates, who did a fabulous job during this legal battles to convince the judge that he could not remember a single thing. What lessons are our higher courts teaching us?! I thought learning from the past was a good thing, but apparently forgetting the past is much safer.

Re:This is just barely a win -- a technicality (5, Insightful)

bwt (68845) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756698)

The key to winning the case was that Pavlovich did not know that DVD CCA is based out of California (until after they sued him), and because he did not know this, certain legal tests fail, and he cannot be pursued as the suit was filed.

I think you overemphasize the importance of this element of the decision. Him not knowing the DVDCCA was in California was simply the batting down of one of the lame arguments made by the DVDCCA.

The real thrust of the matter is that you have to "target" your activity towards a state in order to be sued there. Pavlovich didn't and his Indiana/Texas based activity wasn't governed by California law. That is not a technicality, it is a very important result that says that passive posting on the internet will not be governed by the least common denominator laws.

Keep in mind that this decision is not the main decision on the merits -- that will come down when the "Bunner" appeal is decided. Here Pavlovich specifically argued that he shouldn't be lumped in to the California lawsuit because it wasn't California's place to decide if what he did in TX/IN was illegal because he didn't have any relationship with California.

Re:This is just barely a win -- a technicality (2)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756828)

It's not that groundbreaking because this is not that new of a concept. State laws cannot control what is posted on the Internet on servers outside of their state, nor can they regulate what comes into the state over the Internet because that would be interstate commerce, which is purely a federal domain. Porn operators can be reassured that they cannot be dragged into the Bible Belt for things they post from their home state, but I think they already knew that.

Re:This is just barely a win -- a technicality (2)

bwt (68845) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756933)

Umm, this was a 4-3 decision. That pretty much defines groundbreaking. Your statement that state law cannot govern what is posted outside of their state is just flat wrong, and THIS court in fact gave the standard for when exactly that can happen, and carefully went over several different arguments that would have exposed Pavlovich's out of state conduct to CA law, but in each case was unable to find the critical elements.

In a nutshell, Pavlovich didn't "target" his action at California. He didn't target DVD-CCA because he didn't know they were in CA when his site posted DeCSS. He didn't target the movie industry, because they were copyright, not trade secret owners and it has to be the tort in question that was targeted at CA. He didn't target CA business clients because he wasn't in business and his website was "passive" and was therefore not aimed in any particular direction.

Had any one of those elements gone the other way, this case would have been decided differently. This is a very groundbreaking case because it really finds the absolute boundary of long arm jurisdiction statutes with regard to the internet, and (thank god) it found it stopped just short of where it would have had to be to hobble the internet.

Re:This is just barely a win -- a technicality (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756740)

Read the decision to the end. The court is making a ruling about its jurisdiction over someone who does not live in California.

First of all, why is this in state court? This is in state court because the suit was based on revealing trade secrets in DeCSS. DMCA does not get involved.

So the court has to figure out whether or not it has jurisdiction over someone who doesn't live in California. You can be sued for actions that take place outside California, if certain conditions are met. An obvious one would be if the majority of the harm were taking place in California. Another would be express intent to cause harm or to direct your actions at individuals in California.

So anyways, precedent this, precedent that--what it boils down to is that the plaintiff says Pavlovich is under Californian jurisdiction because he "should have known" that his actions might cause harm to the California film industry. The court finds this incorrect for a number of reasons.

1) Pavlovich wasn't trying to do business, but was merely operating a "passive" website of information for those who wanted it. He could hardly be said to be targeting Californians.

2) The court had no evidence of any particular harm anyone in the film industry had suffered as a direct result of Pavolvich's posting.

3) The court had no evidence that any Californian had even looked at his website (!).

4) The plaintiff organization didn't even exist when Pavlovich's site went up!

5) The court found extremely silly the argument that because the film industry is predominantly based in California, a harm against the film industry is predominantly felt in California, and thus Pavlovich targeted California. There's a funny bit in there about getting sued in Idaho for harming the potato industry.

6) The most important thing, I think, for webheads and sysadmins is that the court ruled that merely posting information does not mean that you had express intent to injure, even if others take that information and use it injuriously. Now, the court was ruling in a very narrow situation, which is that if an unsolicited third party were to come along and injure the plaintiff with DeCSS in California, that would not place Pavlovich under California's jurisdiction.It's not a ruling on whether or not Pavlovich would be liable if he had lived in California. But because of the test the court used to determine jurisdiction, they're also implicitly ruling that posting information is not the same as intending it to be misused (though they're not ruling that you can't be liable).

But, you have to remember certain things. One is that you can't encourage people to use information inappropriately (duh!). You oughtn't use it to solicit business. You oughtn't keep records of who looks at it.

Whether he would or wouldn't have won on the merits of the case is another question. One thing that wasn't clear (to me) from the decision was whether he had the information himself or merely linked to it. Also, was the DMCA even law in October 1999? I can't remember.

What's so surprising? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756635)

This is an unset area of law, based around the passage of a law surrounding a group of poorly-understood-by-the-general-populace and very new concepts. You will get inconsistent rulings on this subject, and will continue to do so for a very long time. Conservative judges, and corrupt judges with entertainment-industry links, will uphold the DMCA above and beyond the language in the DMCA itself. Liberal judges, and judges who actually understand the technical issues enough to see the DMCA is in fact about as direct a violation of constutional rights as you can get, will say the DMCA can't be enforced. None of this will be resolved until the supreme court picks up a DMCA case and strikes the DMCA down. (If the supremes uphold the DMCA, you will continue to get inconsistent rulings, as judges and juries alike look at the law, go "this is rediculous", and N-U-L-L-I-F-Y..)

ping pong (0, Offtopic)

martyn s (444964) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756639)

this feels a lot like ping pong.

He's still a criminal (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756643)

and he needs to be sent to prison for violating the DMCA, like it or not. You're to obey all laws , regulations, and orders government officials give you lest you be a terrorist or crook.

Re:He's still a criminal (3, Insightful)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756723)

Look Mommy! I found a troll!

Civil Disobediance is rapidy becoming a moot point.

Re:He's still a criminal (0, Flamebait)

MacAndrew (463832) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756782)

Innocent until proven guilty suddenly sounds pretty good when we like the defendant, eh?

Anyway, this ain't no criminal case.

Re:He's still a criminal (2)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756859)

Innocent until proven guilty sounded pretty good when we first came up with it. I don't care who the defendant is.

Wrong story to post this, but we're all in the same boat. Kinda like the guy who goes on a cruise, and wakes up one morning to find a shackle on his ankle, and an oar poking in his window. Soon we'll all be defendants, guilty until proven guilty. Whee.

it is not illegal to use DeCSS (5, Funny)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756648)

just distribute and talk about it. oops.

Better watch out... (5, Interesting)

MoThugz (560556) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756675)

We need to be extremely careful moving forward. Challenging such things as DeCSS and DMCA with the term 'open source' leads, just as it did here, to the ideal that the open source community is simply a group of software pirates.

There must be a point made, whether by press release or otherwise, that Open Source does not in anyway support the copyright infringement of any commercially available (or, for that matter, freely available) software. We need to make it clear that we are not advocates of breaking the law, as this judgement seems to suggest.

However, saying that "I am not guilty of copyright infridgement because I work for the open source community" is not a valid arguement. This is probably why it has been associated with piracy. Again, we must make the difference clear to everyone so they don't get the wrong impression.

On a similar note, since the Judges of the court obviously do not understand what Open Source is and labeled "us" as "rogue software pirates", is there any legal action we can take against the court in a defamation of character suit? It's obvious they have just degraded us and our cause without a viable reason.

libel -- no (2)

MacAndrew (463832) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756719)

On a similar note, since the Judges of the court obviously do not understand what Open Source is and labeled "us" as "rogue software pirates", is there any legal action we can take against the court in a defamation of character suit? It's obvious they have just degraded us and our cause without a viable reason.

Er, where did you read that?

The judges would invoke their absolute immunity. This may seem unsporting, but imagine what would happen to the judicial decision if every losing party could tie the judge up in a lawsuit. Also, judges should be fearless in writing their opinions. That said, "rogue software pirates" is not very professional and suggests prejudice. Too much of that sometimes gets judges recused from further proceedings to avoid any "appearance of impropriety."

There -- much more than you wanted to know. :)

Say what? (3, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756763)

What ruling did you read? The phrase "rouge software pirates" does not appear anywhere at all inside it. You better watch out, they may sue you for libel for making up that quote.

This case isn't about Open Source at all. All this ruling said is that CA was the wrong state to sue this defendant.

Sorry guys, this means little (5, Informative)

MacAndrew (463832) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756677)

At least it means little to the general cause of resisting the DCMA. It is very good news for the defendant (for the moment) and an interesting discussion of personal jurisdiction, if you're into that sort of this (I am).

Personal jurisdictional is a constitutional question of due process, and governs whether a court may requires or permit a party to be joined in a legal action. Whether a court has personal jurisdiction is usually gauged by the party's contacts with the state, such as residence, committing significant acts there, consent to jurisdiction, and so on. If the court does not have jurisidiction, the case will be dismissed (at least as to that party) without addressing the merits of the lawsuit.

That's what happened here. The court was quite explicit in its conclusion which questions it was or was not deciding. It is interesting speculation whether this decision is mistaken, and where the plaintiff might next sue, if at all, so as to be assured of personal jurisdiction. It is also possible that the plaintiff dropped the ball and could have persuaded the California court on jurisdiction had it adduced more facts regarding the defendant's actions.

A parting caveat -- I just gave the opinion a power read and could be clueless on something important. However, the nature of the court's discussion is extremely familiar, and doesn't have a thing to do with DeCSS.

We, however, emphasize the narrowness of our decision. A defendant's

knowledge that his tortious conduct may harm industries centered in California is
undoubtedly relevant to any determination of personal jurisdiction and may
support a finding of jurisdiction. We merely hold that this knowledge alone is
insufficient to establish express aiming at the forum state as required by the effects
test. Because the only evidence in the record even suggesting express aiming is
Pavlovich's knowledge that his conduct may harm industries centered in
California, due process requires us to decline jurisdiction over his person.
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.

Re:Sorry guys, this means little (2)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756772)

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. 1. Pick the right state 2. ?????? 3. Profit!

Minor correction (4, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756712)

The court did NOT say that Pavlovich's posting wasn't actionable -- they said that he is not within the jurisdiction of the California courts. Pavlovich may yet have to go to court, just in a different state. Other people who post DeCSS may be within California's jurisdiction.

Wall Street and the DMCA (2, Insightful)

USC-MBA (629057) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756735)

Having read through Pamela Samuelson's paper entitled "Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy: Why the Anti-Circumvention Regulations Need to Be Revised", which was linked to in the writeup, I am struck by a major assumption on which Samuelson relies.

Throughout the paper, Samuelson assumes that the "New Economy" will be stifled by the "unpredictable, overbroad, inconsistent, and complex" anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. Clearly, Samuelson is trying to appeal to the economic interests of her to combat the restrictive nature of the DMCA. It can be seen, then, that in "Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy" Samuelson is positing a conflict between the interests of the "New Economy" and those of the "Old Economy", i.e., the media interests backing the DMCA

The problem with this approach is (of course) that the so-called "New Economy" is widely precieved at present to have been something of a bust, thanks mostly to the feeble state of the stock market, in particular the 60 per cent plus decline in the NASDAQ. Therefore, the "Old Economy" has a leg up in Samuelson's conflict of economic interests, which does not bode well for future instances of anti-copyright legislation.

Mr, Pavlovich has gotten off, as it were, on a technicality. Given the provisions of the DCMA, however, had he been a California resident, his fate may have been grim indeed, and given the advantages presently enjoyed by the "Old Economy" pro-copyright forces, it appears we will all have to deal with the DCMA for some time to come.

Re:Wall Street and the DMCA (4, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756837)

Nope, it's had this case been filed in a Federal Court his fat would have bene grim. DMCA is a federal law, it's up to the federal courts to enforce it.

The DVDCCA took a winning case to a wrong court and lost. However, it doesn't prevent them from learning from this mistake and trying again.

seems good, but narrow (3, Interesting)

thoth_amon (560574) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756745)

Disclaimer: IANAL, but I'll give you my legal opinions anyway. ;-)

While I am all for this decision, it seems the major benefit is that it places additional legal hurdles before DVD CCA. They have to sue each non-Californian web site individually, in the state where that site resides. My guess is that the biggest hassle here as far as the DVD CCA is concerned is that each state has different laws, and the plaintiffs would have to show that posting the material was illegal in the state where the web site resides. That not only shoots the legal costs up sharply, but then you also risk having web site operators in states where posting such material is entirely legal and protected. (Never mind federal laws such as the DMCA that might also apply to a case like this.)

Of course, maybe the DVD CCA could sue from another state that has more "liberal" policies on what is within its jurisdiction.

The decision does NOT seem to make any statements about the legality of reverse-engineering CSS, or writing code to implement the DeCSS algorithm, or distributing that code. The court did not find that distributing DeCSS was legal, but rather that under these specific circumstances, Californian courts are not the ones to decide this. Not that I would have expected a more sweeping opinion given the specific focus of the question before the court.

Bottom line: This is a roadblock for DVD CCA and organizations that are similarly evil, but it is far from a conclusive win or even a sweeping victory -- at least that's how it looks from here. Any people with more legal expertise care to add to or correct these thoughts?

Re:seems good, but narrow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756872)

As much as I would like to see this case as a "positive", I'm afraid it doesn't really mean much. The case was dismissed on a procedural issue, not one of merit. The decision however, wasn't so much that California's courts should not decide this, but that California's courts DO NOT have jurisdiction over this particular defendant, Matthew Pavlovich, because Pavlovich didn't "avail" himself to California's jurisdiction. However, if a person domiciled in California did the same thing, or if Pavlovich had done something like sell the code to people in California, then California's courts WOULD have jurisdiction.

Sadly, I'm not even sure if this decision is much of a roadblock. If anything, this is just a temporary setback for the DVD CCA people that arose from a brainfart on the part of their lawyers who should have brought the case in Federal Court instead of California state court. There are cases that cannot appear in front of a federal court, but this shouldn't be one of them. I haven't read the whole opinion yet, but if the cause of action arose under the DMCA, it would qualify for "federal question" jurisdiction. Even if that wasn't the case, the fact that the parties were based in different states would qualify them for "diversity" jurisdiction (Federal courts have original jurisdiction over two types of cases, ones involving federal law (i.e. DMCA), or ones involving parties from different states (diversity jursidiction). If DVD CCA had brought it there and won the case in Federal Court, it would have helped to establish precedence that future cases can look to. Though the decision just passed in California is "good", it is at best a temporary victory, until they bring it in federal court again.

very close decision --- too close for comfort (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756787)

I skimmed the actual decision and the most disturbing fact is it was 4:3. There were three dissenters who wanted to rule the other way!

The decision came down to the vote of a single justice who chose the "right" side.

I'll let you draw your own comparisons to the US Supreme Court decision on the Bush vs Gore election of 2000.

Reverse Engineering is illegal!?.... (3, Interesting)

bkontr (624500) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756794)

Not according to DCMA:

(f ) Reverse Engineering.--(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that the case should be thrown out.

WHY!? (1)

BubbaTheBarbarian (316027) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756796)

Judge + (sucky case * chance to make name for yourself) = easy street.
Once again showing two things:
The system will catch up with you. It always does. I view the DMCA and it's like the same as I would view any similar laws in totalitarian land. We all know that the road that leads down is bloodshed and revolution, so it makes me happy to hear about a step in right direction.
Number two is easy. WHY THE HELL STOP SOMEONE FROM USING YOUR PRODUCT!? Free market people!!! Has the MPAA ever LOOKED at a divx clip. HORRIBLE!!!
Control control control. If they put as much effort into making decent films, into supporting the art of film (such as effots that produced Spieburg, Lucas and the like....is there a YOUNG director/producer worth shit?)they would get a much better return on investment then this worthless pursuit of pennies.
Kind of like chasing that girl forever just to find out she...oh wait, mod me down, that was off-topic.
Just remember, the system will always win. (take note MS...ask IBM about that feeling)

Article Summary is WRONG! DMCA date invalid! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756810)

Livid was fully functioning as was DeCSS BEFORE nov 30th 1999.

DMCA does not cover software or hardware created BEFORE the begginning of 2000.

This is a fact.

DMCA will NEVER have any bearing on the original frozen sources of Nov 1999 Livid and livid is now "clean" of any tainting from the XING key anyways.

Current versions use brute force key cracking,a s do other DVD ripping source examples.

DMCA start date was a few months too late.

Too badfor DMCA but its a fact, the origianl aguments were NEVER about DMCA they were about theft of XING key using a debugger violating the click-wrap license.

neat quote from dissent (5, Interesting)

pmineiro (556272) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756845)

The honorable Judge J. Baxter writes in dissent:
The record indicates that, by intentionally posting an unlicensed decryption code for the Content Scrambling System (CSS) on their Internet Web sites, defendant and his network of ``open source'' associates sought to undermine and defeat the very purposes of the licensed CSS encrytion technology ...

Wow! Makes free software sound like the mafia. (Those are his quotes around open source, btw.)

I think we (open source) have a major PR problem with the judiciary to address.

-- p

Re:neat quote from dissent (2)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4756884)

I think it's the reverse. That the judge understands that the correct definition of open source is legal, quoting the phrase implys "he calls this open source, but I don't." The fact is, Open Source is not a legal sheild that protects you from the evils of copyright law, in fact, it's a waiving of some of your copyrights you're granted by law in exchange for a promise everybody who modifies your work will waive their copyright too.

Bottom line: Don't go into court expecting "but it was for an Open Source project!" to get you off the hook for anything.

Rebel (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756879)

Soon as I saw the story on the front page I knew what awaited inside. Hundreds of posts from zitty geeks trying to be punker-than-thou by coming up with ever-more-obscure namedropping to make up for their lack of real style (or to pretend that they are actually old enough to have been involved). Drop the pretension kiddos. We all know that your Blink 182 CD is older than your copy of Bollocks.

I love how a whole new level of conformity has been created by the average bozo's efforts at individuality. It might almost work if your personal definition of individuality didn't depend so heavily on how you present yourself to others. I mean, what's the sense of being into bullshit like [insert pseudo-non-mainstream hobby here] if you can't talk about it to make yourself superior to your peers?

Kinda sounds like the Linux crowd, huh? "I'm so ALTERNATIVE by patching my kernel every day while you brainwashed Windows sheep meander in unenlightened tedium." Funny to think that if you had back all the time you spent tweaking and patching (for no good reason other than to say you have the latest version), you wouldn't know what to do with the workstation on your desk.

*sigh*

excuse the rant. caffiene has yet to be digested.

Technically Correct Verdict (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4756888)

To reiterate the comments of previous /. members, this is not a win on substance, but on procedure. The Court outlines classic law school cases of personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is simply "does the defendant have enough contacts with the state for the court to have jurisdiction over them." One of the cases in law school casebooks is Zippo v. Zippo, where the court introduces a "sliding scale" of what level of interaction on the internet will meet the minimum level of contacts necessary to "avail himself of the forum's benefits." On one end, a simple ad does not amount to a minimum contact with the state. On the other end, "interactive" sites may be seen as meeting the "minimum contact." Accordingly, this case was properly decided in the "passive" site and does not meet the level of contacts prescribed by the courts. That's why the words that the Court uses, "The site only provided information; it did not solicit or transact any business and permitted no interactive exchange of information between its operators and visitors." is very important. It affirmed the Zippo v. Zippo ruling. To be honest, I'm surprised the Court of Appeals applied the verdict the way they did.
Again, as mentioned before me, this simply dismisses the case due to lack of personal jurisidction. It does not prevent the Plaintiff from trying again in TX. And worst of all, it doesn't prevent a huge company like the RIAA from suing in TX.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>