13.07.2015 Views

Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

(iii) S<strong>on</strong>y Computer Entertainment America v. DivineoIn S<strong>on</strong>y Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Divineo, 535 <strong>the</strong> court granted summaryjudgment to <strong>the</strong> plaintiff that several devices sold by <strong>the</strong> defendant violated <strong>the</strong> anticircumventi<strong>on</strong>provisi<strong>on</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> DMCA. The devices all could be used to circumvent anau<strong>the</strong>nticati<strong>on</strong> process designed by S<strong>on</strong>y into <strong>the</strong> Playstati<strong>on</strong> system to verify that an inserteddisc was au<strong>the</strong>ntic before <strong>the</strong> Playstati<strong>on</strong> would play it. If a user burned a copy of a copyrightedPlaystati<strong>on</strong> game, a unique code that was part of every au<strong>the</strong>ntic disc would not be copied, thuspreventing <strong>the</strong> user from playing <strong>the</strong> copy <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> Playstati<strong>on</strong>. The defendant sold <strong>the</strong> followingdevices that could be used to circumvent this process: (i) HDLoader, software that permitted auser to make an unauthorized copy of Playstati<strong>on</strong>-compatible video games <strong>on</strong>to a separate harddrive c<strong>on</strong>nected to <strong>the</strong> Playstati<strong>on</strong> system; (ii) mod chips that, when wired to a Playstati<strong>on</strong>c<strong>on</strong>sole, circumvented <strong>the</strong> au<strong>the</strong>nticati<strong>on</strong> system and allowed <strong>the</strong> system to play <strong>the</strong>unauthorized software; and (iii) devices that allowed a user to boot up a Playstati<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sole andperform a disc swap without triggering <strong>the</strong> software and hardware mechanisms within <strong>the</strong>Playstati<strong>on</strong> that initiated <strong>the</strong> au<strong>the</strong>nticati<strong>on</strong> system. 536The defendant argued against liability <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong>re were several ways inwhich <strong>the</strong> devices could be used that did not result in infringement of <strong>the</strong> plaintiff’s copyrightedvideo games. First, <strong>the</strong> devices could be used to allow more than 150 items of “homemade”software to execute <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> Playstati<strong>on</strong>. Sec<strong>on</strong>d, software developers could use <strong>the</strong> devices to test<strong>the</strong>ir own games as a less expensive alternative to purchasing a specialized S<strong>on</strong>y c<strong>on</strong>sole thatwould run any game. Third, HDLoader made playing games more c<strong>on</strong>venient by allowing usersto avoid having to swap out discs to change games and because <strong>the</strong> Playstati<strong>on</strong> could read harddrive data more quickly than data stored <strong>on</strong> CDs or DVDs. The defendant also gave a legalnotice <strong>on</strong> its web site warning users that <strong>the</strong>y were resp<strong>on</strong>sible for <strong>the</strong> legality of <strong>the</strong>ir own use ofmaterials obtained through <strong>the</strong> web site. 537 The defendant also invoked <strong>the</strong> reverse engineeringdefense of Secti<strong>on</strong> 1201(f) of <strong>the</strong> DMCA, arguing that users of mod chips could use <strong>the</strong>m toensure <strong>the</strong> interoperability of an independently created computer program with <strong>the</strong> Playstati<strong>on</strong>. 538The court rejected all of <strong>the</strong>se arguments, holding that <strong>the</strong> challenged devices wereprimarily designed for <strong>the</strong> purpose of circumventing <strong>the</strong> Playstati<strong>on</strong> au<strong>the</strong>nticati<strong>on</strong> system whicho<strong>the</strong>rwise c<strong>on</strong>trolled access to software played <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> system, and that “downstream customers’lawful or fair use of circumventi<strong>on</strong> devices does not relieve [defendant] from liability fortrafficking in such devices under <strong>the</strong> DMCA.” 539 The court also ruled that <strong>the</strong> defendant’s legalnotice to users of its devices was not relevant to its own liability under <strong>the</strong> DMCA. 540 Theapplicati<strong>on</strong> of <strong>the</strong> court’s ruling to <strong>the</strong> Secti<strong>on</strong> 1201(f) interoperability rights is interesting. It535536537538539540457 F. Supp. 2d 957 (N.D. Cal. 2006).Id. at 958-59.Id. at 961.Id. at 965.Id.Id.- 129 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!