Grayson Barber (GB 0034)
Grayson Barber, L.L.C.
68 Locust Lane
Princeton, NJ 08540
phone (609) 921-0391
fax (609) 921-7405
Frank L. Corrado (FLC 9895)
Rossi, Barry, Corrado & Grassi, P.C.
2700 Pacific Avenue
Wildwood, NJ 08260
phone (609) 729-1333
fax (609) 522-4927
(Additional Counsel listed on signature page)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil Action
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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."
An 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
engaging in core scientific speech. The private Defendants dared, and specifically invited, the
world to attempt to crack certain technologies which they were proposing to use to protect digital
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
of the technologies. They then did exactly what scientific researchers normally do: they wrote a
discussing their work; they submitted it to a peer-reviewed scientific conference which accepted it
publication; they planned to present the paper at the conference. But then, in a brazen attempt to
Plaintiffs' research, the private Defendants threatened to sue, claiming (among other things)
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.
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
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
SNIPPETS:
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
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 of the paper is
The Declaratory Judgment Act was designed to relieve potential defendants from the Damoclean
Upon information and belief, Defendant Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. is a
Upon information and belief, Defendant Secure Digital Music Initiative Foundation (SDMI) is a
Upon information and belief, Defendant Verance Corporation is a Delaware corporation which
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
Plaintiffs selected the Fourth International Information Hiding Workshop (IHW), to be held in
After the SDMI Paper went through the peer review process, the Plaintiffs were notified in
Further, as an entity which stands to gain commercially from the publication of the SDMI
Concurrently herewith, Plaintiffs file under seal, marked as Exhibit 4, the SDMI Paper as
The ICASSP Paper was both shorter and less technical than the SDMI Paper, and it was
|
