First Amended Felten Complaint
June 26, 2001 Grayson Barber (GB 0034) Grayson Barber, L.L.C. 68 Locust
Lane Princeton, New Jersey 08540 (609) 921-0391 Frank L. Corrado (FLC 9895)
Rossi, Barry, Corrado & Grassi, P.C. 2700 Pacific Avenue Wildwood, NJ 08260 (609)
729-1333 (Additional Counsel listed on signature page) Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Civil
Action FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. CV-01-2660 (GEB) EDWARD W. FELTEN; BEDE
LIU; SCOTT A. CRAVER; MIN WU; DAN S. WALLACH; BEN SWARTZLANDER;
ADAM STUBBLEFIELD; RICHARD DREWS DEAN; and USENIX ASSOCIATION, a
Delaware non-profit non-stock corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. RECORDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.; SECURE DIGITAL MUSIC INITIATIVE
FOUNDATION; VERANCE CORPORATION; JOHN ASHCROFT, in his official
capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; DOES 1 through 4,
inclusive, Defendants. INTRODUCTION "So here's the invitation: Attack the
proposed technologies. Crack them." "Open Letter to the Digital Community," available
on the Internet at: . 1. The private
Defendants, relying on a relatively new and unclear statute, have chilled Plaintiffs from
engaging in core scientific speech. The private Defendants dared, and specifically invited,
the entire Internet world to attempt to crack certain technologies which they were
proposing to use to protect digital music from copyright infringement. The individual
Plaintiffs, researchers from Princeton University, Rice University and elsewhere took up
the challenge as part of their normal scientific research and defeated most of the
technologies. They then did exactly what scientific researchers normally do: they wrote a
paper discussing their work; they submitted it to a peer-reviewed scientific conference
which accepted it for publication; they planned to present the paper at the conference. But
then, in a brazen attempt to squelch Plaintiffs' research, the private Defendants threatened
to sue, claiming (among other things) violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA) even though they had specifically authorized Plaintiffs to attack their
technologies. 2. Unfortunately, the private Defendants successfully accomplished their
short-sighted objective. The conference at which the paper was to be presented was
thrown into chaos, and the researchers felt compelled to withdraw their paper for fear of
having to defend baseless litigation. Their speech was chilled, to their detriment and to
the detriment of the scientific community. 3. The individual Plaintiffs (all but one of the
original researchers) still desire to present the results of their research, but fear that they
will be sued. Plaintiff USENIX Association has accepted their research for its Security
Symposium in mid-August, but fears that, because it benefits financially from holding
conferences, it may be subject to criminal as well as civil liability under the relevant
provision of the DMCA. Plaintiffs are forced to seek a Declaration from this Court that
publication and presentation of the paper is lawful, since they have no other reasonable
way to assure themselves, in the face of the serious threats made by the private
Defendants, that they will not be sued or prosecuted for publishing mainstream and
SNIPPETS:
ADAM STUBBLEFIELD; RICHARD DREWS DEAN; and USENIX ASSOCIATION, a Delaware non-profit
FOUNDATION; VERANCE CORPORATION; JOHN ASHCROFT, in his official capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL
The private Defendants, relying on a relatively new and unclear statute, have chilled
The private Defendants dared, and specifically invited, the entire Internet world to attempt
The individual Plaintiffs, researchers from Princeton University, Rice University and
They then did exactly what scientific researchers normally do: they wrote a paper discussing
But then, in a brazen attempt to squelch Plaintiffs' research, the private Defendants
Plaintiff USENIX Association has accepted their research for its Security Symposium in
Plaintiffs are forced to seek a Declaration from this Court that publication and presentation
The Declaratory Judgment Act was designed to relieve potential defendants from the Damoclean
Plaintiff Scott A. Craver is a graduate student in the Department of Electrical Engineering
Plaintiff USENIX Association is a Delaware non-profit non-stock corporation, with its
Upon information and belief, Defendant Secure Digital Music Initiative Foundation (SDMI) is a
Upon information and belief, Defendant Verance Corporation is a Delaware corporation that
The Defendants referred to in paragraphs 13 through 15 will sometimes be referred to
Some of the relief which Plaintiffs seek cannot be fully afforded in the absence of this
On September 6, 2000, SDMI issued an "Open Letter to the Digital Community," available on the
The proposed technologies must pass several stringent tests: they must be inaudible, robust,
challengers may be able to receive compensation for describing and providing to SDMI their
If a viewer clicked on that button, then the viewer would be taken to the next page on the
After the SDMI Paper went through the peer review process, the Plaintiffs were notified in
Plaintiffs are forced to bring this Declaratory Judgment action as their only reasonable
The ICASSP Paper was both shorter and had a different technical emphasis than the SDMI Paper,
The individual Plaintiffs did not violate the DMCA by submitting the SDMI Paper to the IHW or
|
