WPC  QۤOC̕[;xR7N]&Ļ/j25X%Ͼ8gA|{b&8=>XB3~SX*6E g,=S"e.uLずJy~w`z⇶ATn~/OA?Marl,*T*r;2FJ(!Ij8:(r'i֬,SW7'/OsX=(0NWm.dAC?NEB8R`h4/v?q#{yxL\aJ|Es ߼k_+E 6eǠ1c <7K^4fյ[tQ7>=#rG ݖvN/i7P0k;| eҖCa믄 n܇3ݚgɲExqE=tiC[X|N:eGLBpPL# (U N3 % 0(@&oew@`m4mmm mmemm 0enoU JoZo 0g pp 0eMqq 0 lor#r 0 DsBtuw 0DxxyUNzUHzUH8{UR{a{UN3}UR}}}} 0C} B~~~~ A3~3~ D+~ 0J~EEEEm 0DxxxxxxxxxURp^~~܆܆ BerylHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0vL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($A:\LETTERHD.TIFWPC,,??9?,, e?}65554440?4044?4????31??31???31??~3:??3:??3:??3:???33???33? ?34?  ???34?p ??34?p`?34?p?`?34???`??34????34???34????3.??3.????3.?????3.????3-??33??33??33??33??33???33?x??x?33?p?8??33? ??3?3?? ???3?3???32???38??38??38??38??3?????4=???4=????46???4=x????y48??y47``????y4<``????D5;``????C5;``???  C6 ?@  Cg   Cg '? Cf ?'? Cf ?7??Cf ?7???Cf 7?Cf 7??Cf ?7?Ce 7?Ce 7?Ce 7??Ce ?7????Ce ?5????Ee ??Ee ?????Ee ??Ee ???Ee ????3e >? 3d ??? 3d ? 3d???? 3d??? ?3d?? ?3d???? ?3d???? ?3d? ?3d????5d????5d?????5d???????5d?? ???5d????5d,??????5d,????5d,????5d-????5d-????5d-?????6e?????6e??6eJ????6eJ???6eJ???6eM??3e?L?x??4eS?4fX?4f&-?4f%??-?4f ??Ag??AAAA?AABBBBrjrjPWP ?WPXP XP?? XP? XP? XP? XP? XP? XP? XO&OOT~?|~x8x>OOT8?À0?|??x|OOT1?p?;??yOOT7???????!qOOT?#??????#??OOT?????????OOT????????OOT????????OOT? ??????ONU??????ONU??????~???ONU???~???~???ONU?~?~??~?~??ONU?~?|??~?~???ONU?x??????>CONUx?q??>?0?>?>CONU~8?0b?;> 8?`9x9<8?ONUx?0?18`8?`9x0 x981>~?ONUx?8<<x?!83~8|OMUx~??8xPMUx??<?>8PMUx??|????~?<PR??? ??Pc?ccbbaaaa?bb33T ?  `   `  <|  |~? ?|~~? |~~? |~~?A |?A ? ?|?x?<|?p0``0xp~?|p `@ p`|?,x? @p+x????x`*??|???a?+x??>?x?+x??>?x?+??>x?+q??a~?+q???+3????+#???>?>?+'??>?>?+????>?~?+???<~?>?~?+???<<??>?+~?|x?<`?+~<`  ?+<            ?     ~?? ? ? ? ? ???%|?%8~p8%?~?8%?~???%????%???%?%??%?????%?????%????%G??%G??%??%??%???%??&? ?&??x?&?? ??     ?|   ?  >    ??        ? ?  ? ? `??x~? @8x||~ @~x~ Ä|xx À|x~x Á<x? ??x ???| ??~p ??0 ?0 ?y8 <?y8 8py8? 8py| ?xp?>xx| ?p>?< ?@?| ? ? ? > ? 8 ? ??  ? ??????C?C????0?`??08?x`?p???|?px~??|??x~?|??0|??|??0?|??8???<x?? ??>8?Î?|?????1??1???2??y?2?y?2??2|??>?2 `|?~`2 p |2x~ ?? $# ?<? ?@?<?(x8%@x????(? %?????(??%?????(??%???(??%??(???%??(?%??(?%>???@(???%>?(??%>??(??% >??"???? ?     ?  ?  ! ?@? ??@??@??? ? ??|??? |????  8???  ?8? "?>Ϗ?)??!?>Ϗ)? ??>)???? ??>) ??? ~?>)? |~?>)? x? ?)??? 8?|?)?? 1??)?? ??)? ??)?0???)?x????|? ?>?)??~ ~?>?)` ?>*>  ?*>??? 8'C>?x`p? ?   ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?1 ??0??` > |ǃ><~>Ü89~|?!s=|???y??s<?s8?'? q?<'?0?q?<?8?><??~~>?~p~p8???1???? !?? ?  ??|x?p?|xF>ppϟ|????>8??>>>8?? >>?~1??>>~???|1>?? ><<~?>?!>>?? ?|8?{~|???|8p|><<8?{|?@H <|D$sbpD>>p|<0 q`>|8~< ?p~x~< D D!D"#D$U%b&'(O9(+xf(1003|x( U1, 2, 3,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#*&2Quick 1.   .0  ),h  Z 2CG Times (W1) Regulari., ii., iii.,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 56#+F4Quick i.   .0 I., II.,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#+2Quick I.  .0  '  PrefilingConferenceLetterofDefendantJeraimeeHughes    March6,2000!  Page  2  ((3$ !      0    $    3     ` Todaystechnologyforpersonalcomputers,includingthesizeofharddrivesand  thespeedofmodems,makesthecopyingandtransmissionextremelylaborious,slowandinefficient.(#$  0    $    1     ` XAK XXXThetechnologybehindthedecryptioncodeandDVDtechnologyisdescribedin  moredetailbelow,andshouldtheCourtpermitthefilingoftherequestedmotions,shallbemorefullydescribedasnecessaryindefendantssubsequentmemorandaoflawinsupport#XyX XXAKO#thereof.  $    6    XAK XXX ` Thisargumentistobedistinguishedfromthelaterargumentin5thatevenif  oneallows,arguendothattheDMCAistheappropriatestatutetoapply,plaintiffshave  invokedthewrongsection(1201(a)(2)),when1201(b)(1)maybemoreappropriateaccordingtothelegislativehistory. $    2     ` DeCSSissomewhatofamisnomer,forasisdiscussedbelow,CSShasnotin  factbeenfullydecryptedbyDeCSS.(3$ !       7)  /u XX  l  /u!z >l")?zCHAPMAN&ASSOCIATES,LLC#"XX@)#  "X@XSEVENELMSTREET r NEWHAVEN,CONNECTICUT06510TEL.2037777602FAX2037777606 #"XX@#(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular( Z 0BernhardMod BT Roman,AQ Z 0Book Antiqua Regular1a< :Bookman Old Style Regular W 7)  $/u XX %) /uCHAPMAN&ASSOCIATES,LLC#%XX@)#  %X@XSEVENELMSTREET r NEWHAVEN,CONNECTICUT06510TEL.2037777602FAX2037777606 #%XX@#(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular1a< :Bookman Old Style Regular(3C$ !   d2)10 I&mage <=8C HKKKK'dxd("$ Figure    Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 c 7)  jXX @j  CHAPMAN&ASSOCIATES,LLC#@X X@#  @ X@X SEVENELMSTREET r NEWHAVEN,CONNECTICUT06510TEL.2037777602FAX2037777606 #@X X @#(3$ !  1a< :Bookman Old Style Regular f $    5     ` XAK XXXItisofinteresttonotethatintheCaliforniaaction,plaintiffDVDCAAalleged  that#XyX XXAKO#XAK XXXytheDVDCCAwasspecificallycreatedinordertorepresentandbalancethesecompeting  interests.ComplaintforInjunctiveReliefforMisappropriationofTradeSecrets,DVDCopy  ControlAssociationv.McLaughlin,et.al.  #XyX XXAK# T $    4     ` XAK XXXItisinterestingtonotethatthefirstDVDencryptioncase,DVDCopyControl  Association,Inc.v.McLaughlin,Doc.No.786804,SantaClaraCounty,Californiawas  broughtonbehalfoftheDVDCCA.ThesubsequentNewYorkaction,UniversalCity  Studios,etal.v.Reimerdes,broughtintheSouthernDistrictofNewYork,waslaterbrought  bytheverysameplaintiffsasthewithinaction. $    7     ` XAK XXXLinuxusersplayingtheDVDdiscscouldhearthesoundbutnotseethepicture.  $    8    XAK XXX ` AlsoofnoteisthatDeCSSonlysolvesthevisualportionoftheCSSencryption  schemethatistosay,DeCSSdoesnotfullydecrypttheCSSencryptionastotheaudioportion.TheaudioportionalreadywasoperationalonLinuxsystems,andconsequentlydidnotrequiredecryption.Therefore,theconcernofplaintiffsforwholesalepiracybyvirtueofDeCSSiswithoutmerit.  $    9     ` XAK XXXTheCourtshouldlikewisebeawarethatintheCaliforniaaction,onorabout  January13,2000,JohnHoy,thePresidentoftheDVDCCA,filedadeclaration(affidavit)withtheCourtinwhichheappendedtheDeCSScodeas ExhibitA.Neitherthatdeclarationnortheexhibitwerefiledunderseal.Therefore,theDVDCCAhasitselfpublishedtheDeCSScodeinapublicforum,andshouldnotbeheard,eitherdirectlyorthroughitsmotionpictureindustrymembers,tocomplainthatMr.Hughesallegedsubsequentpublicationofthatmaterialissomehowactionableatlaw. !  9  %_ %m.9)%`|0 * ` E* * no m (#(#                                                            (#(#   March6,2000!    VIAHANDDELIVERY  \ TheHonorableRobertN.ChatignyUnitedStatesDistrictCourtDistrictofConnecticut450MainStreetHartford,Connecticut06103   ` Re:0 UniversalCityStudios,Inc.etal.v.Hughes  (# (#    `  CaseNo.300CV72RNC YourHonor:  ThisofficerepresentsthedefendantJeraimeeHughes.Pursuantto(b)oftheCourtsStandingOrderonPretrialDeadlines,Mr.HughesherebyrespectfullysubmitsthisprefilingletterrequestingaconferencepriortothefilingofF.R.C.P.17andF.R.C.P.12(b)motionsbyMr.Hughes.Thenatureoftheproposedmotionsandabriefsummaryofthebasisforeachmotionaresetforthbelow.WeaskthattheCourtkindlynotethatinseveralcases,thereismorethanonebasisforamotionunderthesameRule.+  + I  .0    ProceduralHistoryandBriefStatementoftheFacts:+ *ی%0!$(#(# Ќ    ThecomplaintinthismatterwasfiledbyplaintiffsonoraboutJanuary14,2000.Defendant '#& filedaMotionforExtensionofTimetofileananswerorotherwisereplyonFebruary3,2000,whichMotionwasgrantedbytheCourtonFebruary7,2000.  TheplaintiffsinthisactionaretheeightmajormotionpicturestudiosintheUnitedStates. Mr.Hughesisallegedtobeanoperatorandcontentproviderofthect2600website.Complaintat T,'+ 6.PlaintiffsallegethatdefendantpostedthedecryptioncodetoDVDdiscsonhiswebsitein&(6((#(&&&violationoftheXAK XXXtheDigitalMilleniumCopyrightAct( DMCA)12U.S.C.1201etseq.,and   morespecifically,17U.S.C.1201(a)(2).Plaintiffsengageinthebusinessofproducing,manufacturinganddistributingmotionpictures.Therelevantmediumwithinwhichthemotionspicturesaredistributedisdigitalversatilediscs( DVDs). #  1      ׀Theplaintiffsclaimthattheyadopted   atechnologicalmeasure,thecontentsscramblesystem( CSS)inordertoprovide securitytothecopyrightedcontentsofDVDdiscs.TheDVDdiscscontainencryption keysthatcanonlybeunlockedordecryptedbylicensedDVDplaybackdevices.Itshouldbenotedthatsuchdevicescanbefoundnotonlyfreestanding,asinahomeentertainmentsystem,butalsoinpersonalcomputers.Plaintiffsfurtheraverthat allmembersoftheDVDindustry,includingsoftwareandhardwaremanufacturesofDVDplayers,DVDreplicatorsandthecontentprovidersthemotionpicturestudiosadoptedCSSasdirectlicenseesorbycontractingCSSthroughdirectlicensees.Compliantat18.TolicensetheCSStechnology,themembersoftheDVDindustrycreatedtheDVDCopyControlAssociation,Inc.( DVDCCA)tobetheowneroftheCSSlicense.#XyX XXAK #XAK XXXy T,    InOctoberof1999,aNorwegianindividualdecryptedtheCSSencryptionscheme.Hedidso,asismorefullydescribedherein,inordertoallowhislawfullypurchasedDVDdisctoplayonhis Linuxruncomputer. LinuxisacomputeroperatingsystemthathasbeenindependentlydevelopedopenlyontheInternetbyindividualsseekinganalternativetothe Windowscomputeroperatingsystem,whichmanyfeelisfullofoperatingflawsor bugs.WhenDVDdiscsbegantoentercommerce,however,Linuxoperatorsfoundtheycouldnotfully playtheDVDdiscsontheirLinuxcomputers.Thiswasan interoperabilityproblemonetypeoftechnologyintroducedintocommercecouldnotcommunicatewithanothertechnology.Ultimately,aportionoftheCSSencryptiontechnologywasreverseengineeredtoallowLinux basedsystemuserstoplayDVDdiscs.Thatsolutionwascalled DeCSSfordecryptionofCSS.L #  2      ׀ | TherehasbeennopiracyorunauthorizedcopyingofDVDdiscs,andindeed,plaintiffsallegenone. #  3      ׀      TheNorwegianindividualthenpostedhissolutiontotheinteroperabilityproblemontheInternet,andthatinformationwaseventuallypickedupbywebsiteoperatorsandotherindividualsintheUnitedStates.TheDVDCCAandlatertheeightplaintiffshereinsubsequentlybroughttwosuits,captionedbelow,inCaliforniaandNewYork,seekingtopreventthepostingofDeCSSonInternetsites.#XyX XXAK#  Mr.Hughesthereforeobjectstothecomplaintonvariousgrounds,includingbutnotlimitedtothefactthattheDMCAdoesnotapplytoDeCSS,thereisareverseengineeringexceptiontotheDMCA,plaintiffsaremisusingtheircopyright,plaintiffsinvokethewrongsectionoftheDMCA,theDMCAisanunconstitutionalpriorrestrainonfreespeech,andtheallegedpostingoftheDeCSSisprotectedpoliticalspeech.Mr.Hughesfurtherobjectstothestandingoftheplaintiffstobringthewithinaction,andarguesthatthecomplaintisdeficientonanumberofgrounds,including,butnotlimitedtofailuretobringanactionbytherealpartyininterest,failuretojoinapartyneededforajustadjudication,andnumerousfailurestostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted. II.0  ProposedMotionsandBasisforEachMotion:(#(#  XAK XXXy*&  *&_ 1  .0    ThewithincomplaintshouldbedismissedbecauseunderF.R.C.P.17(1)becauseplaintiffs  arenottherealpartyininterest.Theeightnamedplaintiffsclaim,intheircomplaint,thattheyare themajormotionpicturestudiosintheUnitedStates,andthat [e]achplaintiffisengagedinthebusinessofproducing,manufacturing,and/ordistributingcopyrightablematerial,including,specificallymotionpictures.Complaintat2.Plaintiffsthenadmitthattheyaremembersofthedigitalversatiledisc( DVD)industry,andthattheyareeitherdirectlicenseesorcontractorsofdirectlicensees,ofthecontentsscramblesystem( CSS).Compliantat18.*&_z ی (#(# Ќ  0  Plaintiffs,however,havechosentobringtheiractionundertheDigitalMillenniumCopyrightAct( DMCA)12U.S.C.1201etseq.,andmorespecifically,17U.S.C. % 1201(a)(2),claimingthatby offeringtothepublic,providing,orotherwisetraffickinginDeCSS,defendanthasviolatedtheprovisionsgoverningcircumventionofcopyright &  protectionsystemsassetforthintheDMCA.Complaintat27.PuttingasidetheissuewhethertheallegedactionsofMr.HughesareaviolationofanyprovisionsoftheDMCA   velnon,thefactremainsthatbybringinganactionallegingcircumventionoftheCSS   system,plaintiffshaveattemptedtobringanactionforthebenefitoftheDVDCopyControlAssociation,Inc.( DVDCCA),theholderoftheCSSlicence,whichistherealpartyininterestandwhosepresenceisnecessaryforajustadjudication.C #  4      ׀ (#(# Ѐ0  TheDVDCCA,organizedunder501(c)(3)oftheInternalRevenueCode,isavoluntaryorganizationcreatedbythecomputerhardware,consumerelectronicsandmotionpictureindustriestocreatetechnologicalstandardsforDVDtechnology.TheDVDCCAistheowneroftheCSStechnologyandlicensesthattechnologytothevariousindustriesandmanufacturerssupplyingproducttothoseindustries.TheeightnamedplaintiffsinthewithinactionarenottheownersoftheCSStechnologytheyclaimhasbeencircumvented,noraretheytheonlymembersoftheentityowningandlicensingtheCSStechnology.ThereforeitisonlytheDVDCCAwhichhasthearguablyprotestableinterestwhichplaintiffsallegewasaffectedbyMr.Hughes.ItistheDVDCCAthatownsthelicenserightstoCSStechnology,andthemotionpictureindustrythereforecannotseektoprosecutetherightsoranother. (#(# 0  Thepartyinvokingfederaljurisdictionbearstheburdenofestablishingthatithasstanding,andmust"clearly...allegefactsdemonstratingthatitisaproperpartytoinvokejudicialresolutionofthedispute."UnitedStatesv.Hays,515U.S.737,115S.Ct.2431,2435,  132L.Ed.2d635(1995)(internalquotationmarksandcitationsomitted).Plaintiffscannotsustainthisburden. (#(# *&  *&) 2  .0    ThecomplaintshouldlikewisebedismissedunderF.R.C.P.12(b)(7)becauseplaintiffs  p havefailedtojoinanecessarypartyunderF.R.C.P.19.AsidefromtheargumentssupportingdefendantsF.R.C.P.17motionhereinabove,theDVDCCAisalsoanecessarypartytothisactionpursuanttoF.R.C.P.19(a)(2)(ii).FailuretoincludeDVDCCAasapartyinthewithinactionwouldsubjectMr.Hughestothesubstantialriskof X$0 incurringdoubleormultipleobligations.Iftheeightnamedmembersofthemotionpictureindustryareallowedtoprosecutethisaction,thereisnoprotectionforMr.Hughes,aswellasanyotherpersonssimilarlysituated,thatwouldpreventMr.HughesfromlaterbeingsuedforallegedDMCAviolationsbytheDVDCCA.ThefactthattheDVDCCAwouldbeabletobringaseparateandindependentclaimbaseduponthesamefactsandallegationsassertedinthepresentaction,seekingessentiallythesamedamagesthatarebeingsoughtinthisaction,meansthatiftheactionproceededwithouttheDVDCCA,andthepresentwithinplaintiffsweresuccessful,defendantwouldremainsubjecttomultipleobligationsonthesameclaim.SeeRosev.Simms,1995WL702307,at6(S.D.N.Y.  Nov.29,1995);AvonCosmetics(FEBO)Ltd.v.NewHampton,Inc.,1991WL90808at p  4(S.D.N.Y.1991).Thisisspecificallythe substantialriskorincurringdouble,multiple,orotherwiseinconsistentobligationsthatF.R.C.P.19(a)(2)(ii)seekstoavoid.*&)) ی (#(# Ќ  *&  *&w0 3  .0    ThecomplaintlikewiseshouldbedismissedunderF.R.C.P.12(b)(7)becauseadjudication X0  ofthewithinclaimsbyplaintiffswithouttheDVDCCAcouldimpairorimpedeDVDCCAsabilitytoprotecttheirinterestsintheCSStechnology.Therefore,underF.R.C.P.19(a)(2)(_i_),compulsoryjoinderunderthe impairorimpedeclauseiswarrantedtoprotecttheabsentees(DVDCCAs)abilitytoprotectitsinterest.Asdiscussedabove,DVDCCAisthesolelicensingentityforCSStechnology.Complaintat18.SeealsoComplaintforInjunctiveReliefforMisappropriationofTradeSecrets,DVDCopyControl  Associationv.McLaughlin,et.al.(SantaClaraCounty,California).Clearly,anydecision  astothelegitimacyofdistributing_DeCSS_ԀhasdirectandimmediateconsequencestoDVDCCAsinterestsintheCSStechnology.PlaintiffsdonotadequatelyrepresenttheinterestsofDVDCCAbecauseplaintiffsonlyrepresentbutoneportionoftheindustriesrepresentedintheDVDCAA.Theinterestsofthecomputerandconsumerelectronicsindustries,whichalsocomprisetheDVDCCA,areunrepresentedA #  5      ׀andsubsequentlythe  p actionshouldbedismissedforfailuretojoinanecessaryparty.*&w00 ی (#(# Ќ  *&  *&6 4  .0    ThewithincomplaintshouldbedismissedunderF.R.C.P.12(b)(6)becauseplaintiffs h#@ erroneouslyinvoketheDMCA,whichdoesnotapplytheallegedconductbyMr.Hughes. X$0 Assuming,arguendo,thatMr.HughespostedtheDeCSScodeonthewebsitect2600,the (  factremainsthatDeCSSisnotan accesscontroldevicetocopyrightedmaterialasdefinedbytheDMCA. #  6      ׀Thematerial protectedbyCSSalsoincludesnoncopyrighted   material,suchasregionalplaybackcontrolcodes( RPC),commercialadvertisingandothernonexpressiveaspectsofDVDplayback,includingcodethatpreventsusersfromskippingorfastforwardingthroughtheformer.DVDlicensesarerequired,bythetermsoftheirCSSlicense,toenablethesefunctions.ByprotectingsuchnonexpressivefunctionalcontentbehindtheCSSfirewall,theplaintiffsproposetoobroadadefinitiontoaccesscontroldevicethanCongressintended.ToadoptplaintiffsdefinitionofCSSasanaccesscontroldeviceistoallowcopyrightholderstomisusetheircopyrighttocoverorcloakinformationordatathatotherwisewouldnotbecoveredbytheircopyright.*&66 ی (#(# Ќ  0  DeCSSisfairuseofCSSandthecopyrightmaterialitprotectstoobtaininteroperabilityforLinuxusers;itcertainlydoesnotconstitutecopyrightinfringement.ThisisconsistentwithSonyv.UniversalCityStudios,464U.S.417(1984)(saleofcopyingequipmentfor H  videotapesdoesnotconstitutecontributorycopyrightinfringementiftheproductiswidelyusedforlegitimatepurposes),andanalogoustoSegav.Accolade,977F.2d510,52728 ( (9thCir.1993)(thedisassemblyofcopyrightedobjectcodeisfairuseofcopyrightedworkifsuchdisassemblyprovidestheonlymeansofaccesstothatcopyrightedcodeandcopierhasalegitimateforseekingaccess).ThisfairuseargumentwemakehereisalsostronglyanalogoustoSonyComputerEntertainment,Inc.v.ConnectixCorp.,No.9915852(9th  Cir.Feb10,2000)(reverseengineeringbycopyingfunctionalelementsofprogrammingtocreatealternativeplaybackplatformforcomputergameconstitutesfairuse). (#(# 0  Defendantsreadingof fairuseislikewiseconsistentwiththeDMCAframersexpressedintent,towit:17U.S.C.1201(c)(1)providesthat [n]othinginthissection  p shallaffectrights,remedies,limitations,ordefensestocopyrightinfringement,includingfairuse,underthistitle.SeealsoS.Rep.No.105190at25(1998): [Theprovisionsof x"P subsection(d)]areintendedtoensurethatnoneoftheprovisionsinsection1201affectthe existinglegalregimeestablishedbytheCopyrightActandcaselawinterpretingthat X$0 statute.Forthisreasonaswell,plaintiffsfailtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted. (#(#  *&  *&D 5  .0    ThecomplaintshouldalsobedismissedunderF.R.C.P.12(b)(6)becauseplaintiffshave   invokedthewrongsectionoftheDMCA.17U.S.C.1201(a)(2)coversaccesscontroldevices,butplaintiffsclaimsarebasedonacopyrightcontrol/infringementtheory,whichisonlycoveredby1201(b)(2).Thisargumentisconsistentwiththelegislativehistory,whichexplainsthat1201(a)(2)and1201(b)are designedtoprotecttwodistinctrightsandtotargettwodistinctclassesofdevices.Subsection1201(a)(2)isdesignedtoprotectaccesstoacopyrightedwork.Section1021(b)isdesignedtoprotectthetraditionalrightsofacopyrightowner....Thetwosectionsarenotinterchangeable....Forexample,ifaneffectivetechnologicalprotectionmeasuredoesnothingtopreventaccesstotheplaintextofthework,butisdesignedtopreventthatworkfrombeingcopied,thenapotentialcauseofactionagainstthemanufacturerofadevicedesignedtocircumventthemeasureliesundersubsection1021(b),butnotunder1201(a)(2). S.Rep.No.105190(1998).*&D*D ی (#(# Ќ  *&  *&I 6  .0    ThewithincomplaintshouldalsobedismissedunderF.R.C.P.12(b)(6)becauseDeCSS  fallswithinthe reverseengineeringexceptionoftheDMCA,17U.S.C.1201(f),whichisspecificallydraftedtoallowtheresolutionofcomputerandothertechnologyinteroperabilityproblems.1201(f)providesthatnotwithstandinganyoftheprohibitionsof1201(a)and(b)aperson maycircumventatechnologicalmeasure....toachieveinteroperabilityofanindependentlycreatedcomputerprogramwithotherprograms...orforthepurposeofenablinginteroperabilityofanindependentlycreatedcomputeprogramwithotherprograms...andtheinformationacquiredthrough[such]actsandthemeans[sopermitted]maybemadeavailabletoothers...solelyforthepurposeofenablinginteroperabilityofanindependentlycreatedcomputerprogramwithotherprograms....*&I1I ی (#(# Ќ  0  DeCSSwasdevelopedbyauserofthe Linuxcomputeroperatingsystem,aconsumercocomputeroperatingsystemdevelopedontheInternetandeffectively ownedbythecommunityofitsusers,manyofwhomcontributedtowardsitsdevelopment.Linuxwasindependentlydevelopedasanalternativetheomnipresent WindowsoperatingsystemownedandlicensedbyMicrosoftCorporation,whichWindowsprogram,intheopinionofmany,containsmanyerrorsand bugsmakingitundesirable.WiththeadventofDVDtechnology,however,Linuxusersdiscoveredthattheycouldnotfully play lawfullyobtainedDVDdiscs,whichtheyhadpurchasedincommerce,ontheircomputers ) # operatingundertheLinuxsystem.E #  7      ׀TheCSStechnologyoftheDVDdiscswouldnot (   operateintheLinuxenvironment.Thisposedaclassicinteroperabilityproblemthemanufacturesanddistributors,ininternationalaswellasUnitedStatescommerce,ofaconsumerproducthadnotprovidedfortheoperationofthatproductinanyoperatingsystembut Windows.TheLinuxcommunityeventuallysoughttoremedythatproblem,andDeCSSwascreated.G #  8      ׀Because [t]hepurposeof[1201(f)]istofostercompetitionand   innovationinthecomputerandsoftwareindustryS.Rep.No.105190at28(1998),andtheDMCAexpresslyprovidesforanexceptionforreverseengineeringtosolveinteroperabiltyproblems,plaintiffsfailtostateacauseofaction. (#(# *&  *&0T 7  .0    PlaintiffsalsofailtostateacauseofactionunderF.R.C.P.12(b)(6)becausetheposting `  ofDeCSSbydefendantwasprotectedpoliticalspeech.Thect2600website,uponwhichplaintiffsallegeMr.HughespostedDeCSS,isaforumforconstructivecommentaryuponInternetissuesofinteresttothosewhovisitthewebsite.Specifically,ifoneassumes,arguendo,thatDeCSSwaspostedonct2600,itwaspostedwithinthecontextofdiscussion H  anddebateconcerningtheCaliforniaandNewYorkcases,DVDCopyControl 8 Association,Inc.,v.McLaughlin,etal.,andUniversalCityStudios,etal.v.Reimerdes, ( etal.Assuchconstitutionallyprotectedspeech,itisimmunizedfromplaintiffsclaims.K #  9      *&0TKT ی(#(# Ќ  *&  *&bX 8  .0    Plaintiffsfailtostateacauseofactionbecauseplaintiffsrequestedinjunction,restraining  speechpriortopublication,ispresumptivelyunconstitutional. 1[SItisbeyondcavilthata  "priorrestraint"isanygovernmentalaction,includingacourtinjunction,thatpreventsspeechfromreachingthepublic.Anypriorrestraintisthemostdangerousimpositiononindividuals'freedomofspeech.NebraskaPressAss'nv.Stuart,427U.S.539,559(1976)   ("PriorrestraintsonspeechandpublicationarethemostseriousandleasttolerableinfringementonFirstAmendmentrights").Therefore,requestforsucharestraint"comesto[the]Courtbearingaheavypresumptionagainstitsconstitutionalvalidity."NewYork   TimesCo.v.UnitedStates,403U.S.713,714(1971).*&bX}X ی(#(# Ќ  0  TheU.S.SupremeCourthasnotedthattheInternetisoneofthemostegalitarianmediumsinventedandoneofthegreatestdemocratictoolsforthe21stcentury.Renov.American B  CivilLibertiesUnion,521U.S.844,851(1997).TheInternetis"themostparticipatory 2  formofmassspeechyetdeveloped-[and]isentitledtothehighestprotectionfromgovernmentalintrusion."Id.at883,884.TheSupremeCourtrecognizedinRenothatthe   Internetisa"uniqueandwhollynewmediumofworldwidehumancommunication"whichdisseminates"contentasdiverseashumanthought."Id.at852.Recognizingtheneedfor   thehighestlevelofprotectionfromgovernmentalrestraintsonspeech,theSupremeCourtlikenedexpressioninon-linechatroomstotowncrierswithvoicesresonatingfarfromthesoapbox,andlikenedexpressioninnewsgroupshavingcharacteristicssimilartotraditionalstreetpamphleteers.Id.at2344.(#(# 0  Intheinstantcase,plaintiffsseektoprotectonlyprivateinterests,andhavenotnarrowlytailoredtheirrequestedrelief.Assuch,plaintiffcannotovercomethepresumptionthattherequestedpriorrestraintisunconstitutional.Aswell,plaintiffscannotpointtoanydamagecausedbydefendantsprotectedspeech.Therequestedreliefthereforehasnolegitimatepurpose,andwouldserveonlytohaveachillingeffectonfreespeechincyberspace. (#(# 0  Furtherasthehardandsofttechnologyofcyberspacecontinuestogrowexponentially,interoperabilityissueswillcontinuetoproliferate.Consequently,thenecessitytodecrypttechnologyandoffersolutionstointeroperabilityproblemsincreasesaswell.PlaintiffsrequestedreliefwouldchilltheabilityofInternetuserstoactivelypursue,discussanddistributeinteroperabiltysolutions.ThisrequestedreliefisnotwhattheframersoftheDMCAintended.Furthermore,individualswhodonothavetheresourcestoruleoutanypotentialcomplaintsofinfringementormisappropriationwillbeforcedtorefrainfromposting,linkingordiscussinginteroperabilityproblemsandsolutionsontheInternetforfearoflawsuits.Additionally,theremovaloflinkstootherwebsites(throughthe +!" injunction)willalsoeffectivelyrestrainanyadditionalspeechcontainedonthelinkedwebsite,regardlessofwhetherornotitrelatestoDeCSS. (#(#  1[*&  *&g 9  .0    ThecomplaintshouldbedismissedunderF.R.C.P.12(b)(1)becauseplaintiffsare |D misusingtheircopyright.TheDMCAcannotbeusedtoextendthecopyrightofcopyrightholderbeyonditsscopetoaffectmarketingpowerinanotherarea.Plaintiffsareattemptingtoextendpoweroverexhibitionsoftware,whichisadifferentareathanthatprotectedbytheircopyrights.Further,theplaintiffsareattemptingtodictatethebusinessmodelofLinux,ownedbyitscommunityofusers,topreventthecreationofalternativeplatformsforoperationofDVDdiscs.*&gg  ی (#(# Ќ  0  TheSupremeCourthasimpliedthatthedoctrineof"patentmisuse"appliestocopyrightinfringementactions,approvingalowercourt'sborrowingofthepatentmisusedoctrinetoinvalidatea"blockbooking"arrangementwherebytheholderofcopyrightsincertainfilmsconditionedthegrantingoflicensestoshowthefilmuponthepurchaseorrentalofothernoncopyrightedfilms.#X^XXXT#U.S.v.ParamountPictures,68S.Ct.915,92L.Ed.1260,77 % U.S.P.Q.243(1948).XXXX^ԀDefendantsargumentisthereforeB.` hp x (#XB#X^XXXl#Ԁconsistentwiththeprinciplethat &v acopyrightholdercannotseektoartificiallyenlargeitscopyrightbyconditioninguseofitscopyrightedmaterials(themotionpictureitself)onthepurchaseofothercopyrightedmaterials(CSS),forthatreasonthatit addstothemonopolyofasinglecopyrightedpicturethatofanothercopyrightedpicturewhichmustbetakenandexhibitedinordertosecurethefirst.Thatenlargementofthemonopolyofthecopyrightwascondemnedbelowin `+("# _ 9  (_ 9  (&_ 9  _ 9  _ 9  &Paramount,inrelianceonthatprinciple.SeeEthylGasolineCorporationv.UnitedStates, 8  309U.S.436,459,60S.Ct.618,626,84L.Ed.852;MortonSaltCo.v.SuppigerCo.,314 (  U.S.488,491,62S.Ct.402,404,86L.Ed.363;MercoidCorp.v.MidContinentInvestment   Co.,320U.S.661,665,64S.Ct.268,271,88L.Ed.376.Infollowingthisreasoning,the   CourtbelowinU.S.v.Paramount,supra,enjoineddefendantsfromperformingorentering   intoanylicenseinwhichtherighttoexhibitonefeatureisconditioneduponthelicensee'stakingoneormoreotherfeatures. (#(# 0  DefendantsargumenthereisfurthersupportedbythelegislativehistoryoftheDMCAsprecursorproposedlegislationXXXX^,H.R.2271. Initsoriginalversion,H.R.2281contained p  aprovisionthatwouldhavemadeitunlawfultocircumventtechnologicalprotectionmeasuresthateffectivelycontrolaccesstoawork,foranyreason.Inotherwords,thebill,ifpassed,unchanged,wouldhabegivencopyrightownersthelegislativemuscleto lockuptheirworksinperpetuityunlesseachandeveryoneofusseparatelynegotiatedforaccess.Inshort,thisprovisionconvertedanunobstructedmarketplacethattolerates freeaccessinsomecircumstancestoa payperaccesssystem,noexceptionspermitted....Inouropinion,thisnotonlystandscopyrightlawonitshead,itmakesamockeryofourConstitution.105H.Rpt.551,Prt.2(July2,1998).Forthisreasonaswell,Mr.Hughessubmitsthecomplaintmustbedismissed. (#(#   Therefore,defendantJeraimeeHughesrespectfullyrequeststhatthisCourtscheduleaprefilingconference,andthataftersuchconference,hebepermittedtofiletheaforesaidmotionsonthearticulatedgroundstogetherwithmorefullydevelopedlegalmemorandaonthematter.#X^XXXs#    WethankYourHonorinadvanceforyourcourtesiesandlookforwardtoworkingwiththeCourt.   `     h     Verytrulyyours,   `     h     CHAPMAN&ASSOCIATES,LLC   `     h     AVERYS.CHAPMAN!c!$$"c"c:0  RobertP.Dolian,Esq.,counselforplaintiffs.*!$(#(# I2XX^  ##Hughes\0003.let +"%