View source for Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley

{{Short description|American legal case}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox COA case
| name = Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley
| court = [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]]
|image=Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
| ArgueDate       = May 1,
| ArgueYear       = 2001
| DecideDate      = November 28,
| DecideYear      = 2001
| citations = 273 F.3d 429
| full name = Universal City Studios, Inc., Para-Mount Pictures Corporation, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., Tristar Pictures, Inc., Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Shawn C. Reimerdes, Eric Corley a/k/a "Emmanuel Goldstein," Roman Kazan, and 2600 Enterprises, Inc., Defendants.
| Holding         = The [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] prohibits the distribution of software that enables users to circumvent [[digital rights management|copyright protection]] mechanisms.
| Judges          = [[Jon O. Newman]], [[José A. Cabranes]], [[Alvin W. Thompson]]
| Majority        = Jon O. Newman
| keywords = Copyright law, anti-circumvention
}}
'''''Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley''''' (originally known as '''''Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes'''''), 273 F.3d 429 (2nd Cir., 2001), was a court ruling at the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]].<ref name=":2">''Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5930508913825375010&q=273+F.3d+429&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39#%5B1%5D 273 F. 3d 429] (2nd Cir., 2001).</ref> This ruling was the first circuit-level test of the [[anti-circumvention]] provisions of the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]].
== Background ==
Eight plaintiffs, all movie studios, sought an [[injunction]] against the distribution of [[DeCSS]], a program capable of decrypting video content that had been encrypted by the [[Content Scramble System]], which was commonly used to protect [[DVD]]s from unauthorized copying. DeCSS was developed by Norwegian teenager Jon Johansen and released in October 1999 via [[LiViD]], a mailing list focused on producing [[programming tool]]s and [[software libraries]] relevant to DVD use on the [[Linux]] operating system. DeCSS was distributed by LiViD and other Internet communities without authorization from the [[DVD Copy Control Association]], the trade organization responsible for DVD copy protection.<ref name=harvard>{{cite web  | title = Informal DeCSS History Timeline  | url = http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/research/chronology.html  | access-date = 2011-11-11}}</ref>
== District court proceedings ==
In January 2000, the movie studios filed suit under the title '''''Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes''''' at the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York]]'''.'''<ref name=":0">''Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1916797329375920003&q=273+F.3d+429&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 111 F. Supp. 2d 346] (S.D.N.Y., 2000).</ref> The defendants were [[Eric Corley]] (publisher of ''[[2600: The Hacker Quarterly]]'' magazine, which copied the DeCSS code for its readers), Shawn Reimerdes (who had posted the code on dvd-copy.com, a personal website),<ref name="wired">{{cite news  |title=Movie Studios File DVD Hack Suit  |url=https://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/01/33680  |access-date=13 October 2011
|newspaper=Reuters  |date=14 January 2000}}</ref> Roman Kazan (who ran an Internet hosting service that provided access to DeCSS),<ref name="voice">{{cite news  |last=Howe
|first=Jeff  |title=Fade to Black The Motion Picture Association Shuts Down Crypto Research  |url=http://www.villagevoice.com/2000-02-01/news/fade-to-black/1/  |access-date=13 October 2011  |newspaper=Village Voice  |date=1 February 2000}}</ref> and 2600 Enterprises, Inc.<ref name=NYT2>{{cite news  |last=Jones  |first=Dow  |title=Hollywood Studios Join Legal Battle To Stop DVD Copying  |url=http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/01/biztech/articles/15disc.html  |access-date=10 October 2011  |newspaper=NY Times  |date=15 January 2000}}</ref> The studios claimed that the defendants, by making DeCSS available, were trafficking in circumvention devices, an illegal act under the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] (DMCA).<ref name="dltr">{{cite journal  |last=Mihet  |first=Harry  |title=''University City Studies, Inc. v. Corley'': The Constitutional Underpinnings of Fair Use Remain an Open Question  |journal=Duke L & Tech Rev.  |date=14 February 2002  }}</ref> The studios sought an [[injunction]] that would prohibit the distribution and use of the DeCSS program, as well as [[Damages|monetary damages]].<ref name=":0" />
At the beginning of the proceedings, the district court granted a [[preliminary injunction]] barring the defendants from posting the code for DeCSS.<ref name=NYT1>{{cite news  |title=Court Tells Web Sites to Remove Code  |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/24/business/court-tells-web-sites-to-remove-code.html  |access-date=10 October 2011  |newspaper=NY Times  |date=24 January 2000}}</ref> The court felt this precaution was necessary given that the movie studios made a reasonable argument that widespread dissemination of DeCSS would cause irreparable harm to their interests.<ref>''Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6767201706448209578&q=273+F.3d+429&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5 82 F. Supp. 2d 211] (S.D.N.Y., 2000).</ref> Reimerdes and Kazan then entered into [[consent decrees]] with the plaintiffs and were subsequently dropped from the suit. Both were then barred from posting the DeCSS code or providing links to sites where the code could be found.<ref name="rutgers">{{cite journal  |last=Menard  |first=Brian  |title=And the shirt off your back: Universal City Studios, DECSS, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act  |journal=Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal  |volume=27
|year=2001  |pages=371–408  }}</ref>
Corley removed the DeCSS code from 2600.com after the preliminary injunction was issued, but did not reach a settlement of his own with the plaintiffs and remained a defendant in the suit. In what Corley termed an act of "electronic [[civil disobedience]]," 2600.com continued to host links to other websites that themselves provided the source code for DeCSS.{{citation needed|date=October 2011}} Corley also moved for the court to overturn the Digital Millennium Copyright Act altogether as a violation of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]], because it restricted citizens from distributing and discussing programming code, which in turn is an item of expression.<ref name=":1">''Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4887310188384829978&q=111+F.Supp.2d+294&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 111 F. Supp. 2d 294] (S.D.N.Y., 2000).</ref>
In August 2000, Judge [[Lewis A. Kaplan]] ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Kaplan acknowledged the tension in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act between copyright holders and those who wish to use new technologies, but concluded that the language of the act provided relief for the plaintiffs against unauthorized copying of their copyrighted works.<ref name=":0" /> In Kaplan's words, "For now, at least, Congress has resolved this clash in the DMCA and in plaintiffs' favor. Given the peculiar characteristics of computer programs for circumventing encryption and other access control measures, the DMCA as applied to posting and linking here does not contravene the First Amendment."<ref name=":1" />
Judge Kaplan also held that the Corley and 2600.com had violated the DMCA by continuing to post the code that ran afoul of the act's [[anti-circumvention]] provisions. Kaplan issued another injunction against Corley, prohibiting him from posting the DeCSS code or providing links to sites where the code could be found.<ref name=":1" />
Corley appealed this ruling to the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]].
== Circuit court ruling ==
Corley's appeal at the Second Circuit, now under the name '''''Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley''''' because Shawn Reimerdes had been removed as a defendant, received numerous ''[[amicus curiae]]'' briefs from both the entertainment industry and supporters of Internet innovations.<ref name="cnet" /><ref name="poulsen" />
In November 2001, the Second Circuit upheld Kaplan's ruling at the lower court.<ref name=":2" /> However, the circuit court found merit in Corley's view that computer programs are a form of [[protected speech]] regardless of whether they are in [[source code]] or [[object code]] form, which commentators regarded as significant.<ref name="sail">{{cite book  |last=Mark A. Lemley  |display-authors=etal   |title=Software and internet law  |year=2011  |publisher=Wolters Kluwer Law & Business  |location=New York  |isbn=978-0-7355-8915-5  |edition=4th}}</ref> The circuit court opined that the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] could be subjected to [[intermediate scrutiny]] as a partial restriction on free speech.<ref name=":2" /> Citing the Supreme Court precedent ''[[Hill v. Colorado]]'',<ref>''Hill v. Colorado'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13410055345323866526&q=530+U.S.+703&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 530 US 703] (2000).</ref> the circuit court held that some laws can restrict speech for reasons that are "justified without reference to the content" if there are larger public benefits from the speech restrictions. Hence, due to the conflict with the DMCA in the present case, DeCSS was held to be a form of speech but it could be restricted due to its functionality ([[anti-circumvention]] that is prohibited per the DMCA) and not its content.<ref name="sail" />
The circuit court also considered Corley's [[fair use]] defense, as Corley argued that DeCSS allowed users to watch encrypted DVDs, which prior to that point had been impossible on [[Linux]] machines. The circuit court held that the specific facts of the present case were beyond the types of fair use that are permissible under the DMCA. According to the court, "the Appellants do not claim to be making fair use of any copyrighted materials, and nothing in the injunction prohibits them from making such fair use. They are barred from trafficking in a decryption code that enables unauthorized access to copyrighted materials."<ref name=":2" />
== Impact and subsequent developments ==
Both the district and circuit court rulings were controversial, and have been widely criticized by [[free speech]] advocates such as the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] and the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]], as well as the [[American Library Association]], the author of [[The Boondocks (comic strip)|''The Boondocks'']],<ref name="poulsen">{{cite news  |last=Poulsen  |first=Kevin  |title=DeCSS makes the funny pages  |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/03/03/decss_makes_the_funny_pages/  |access-date=17 October 2011  |newspaper=The Register  |date=3 March 2001}}</ref> and others, due to upholding legal restrictions on expressive programming code. On the other hand, some media and content-owning organizations, such as the [[National Football League]] and [[Major League Baseball]], supported the decisions.<ref name="cnet">{{cite news  |title=NFL, musicians urge court to uphold DeCSS ruling  |url=http://news.cnet.com/2009-1023-253351.html  |access-date=17 October 2011  |newspaper=CNet  |date=28 February 2001}}</ref>
Corley initially planned to appeal the circuit court decision to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]], but decided not to after consultation with his lawyers.<ref name="thereg">{{cite news  |last=Leyden  |first=John  |title=2600 withdraws Supreme Court appeal in DeCSS case  |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/07/04/2600_withdraws_supreme_court_appeal/  |access-date=13 October 2011  |newspaper=The Register  |date=4 July 2002}}</ref> Despite the courts' rulings, the DeCSS code is still widely available on the Internet{{example needed|date=June 2024}}.
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Cryptography case law]]
[[Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cases]]
[[Category:2001 in United States case law]]
[[Category:Universal Pictures litigation]]
[[Category:Digital Millennium Copyright Act case law]]
[[Category:DVD Copy Control Association]]
[[Category:2600: The Hacker Quarterly]]