Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

a font to embed the font in free text annotations or form fields, and the plaintiffs’ copyright didnot give them the right to control subsequent use of lawfully made copies of the fonts. 781In addition, for the same reasons noted in connection with the plaintiffs’ Section1201(a)(2) claim, the court ruled that Acrobat 5.0 as a whole and the parts thereof were notprimarily designed or promoted for font embedding purposes and had many other commerciallysignificant purposes other than circumventing the embedding bits associates with the plaintiffs’TrueType fonts. Accordingly, the court granted Adobe’s motion for summary judgment withrespect to the plaintiffs’ anti-circumvention claims. 782(xv) Egilman v. Keller & HeckmanThis case agreed with the I.M.S. case and held that access to a computer through theunauthorized use of a valid password does not constitute an unlawful circumvention. 783 Theplaintiff Egilman was a medical doctor and testifying expert witness in a case in which the courthad issued an order prohibiting anyone involved in the litigation from publishing any statementson Internet websites over which they had control concerning the litigation. Egilman wassanctioned for violating the order by publishing certain inflammatory statements on his website.Egilman claimed that one of the defendant’s law firms had obtained the user name and passwordto his website without authorization and disclosed that information to another defendant’s lawfirm, which then used the user name and password to gain access to his website, from which thefirm obtained information showing that Egilman had violated the court order. Egilman asserteda claim under the anti-circumvention provisions against the law firm. 784The court rejected the claim. It reviewed the facts and holding of the I.M.S. casediscussed in subsection j. above, and found that the case was correctly decided. 785 The courttherefore ruled that “using a username/password combination as intended – by entering a validusername and password, albeit without authorization – does not constitute circumvention underthe DMCA.” The “technological measure” employed by Egilman had not been “circumvented,”but rather merely utilized. 786(xvi) Macrovision v. Sima Products Corp.In Macrovision v. Sima Products Corp., 787 the court held that the defendant’s products,which eliminated Macrovision’s Analog Copy Protection (ACP) signals imprinted on DVDscontaining copyrighted works to prevent the copying of the DVDs, violated the anticircumventionprovisions. The ACP system inserted additional information in the non-visible781782783784785786787Id. at 1038-40.Id. at 1040.Egilman v. Keller & Heckman, LLP, 401 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2005).Id. at 107-09.Id. at 112-14.Id. at 114.2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22106 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2006).- 180 -