Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

DVD Copy Control Association v. Bunner

75 P.3d 1 (2003)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

DVD Copy Control Association v. Bunner

California Supreme Court

75 P.3d 1 (2003)

Facts

Two companies—Toshiba and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.—developed a content scrambling system (CSS) for digital versatile discs (DVDs) to encrypt the DVDs’ content and protect against unlawful copying and distribution of DVD movies. CSS encryption used an algorithm, and decryption required an understanding of that algorithm and a set of so-called master keys contained in compliant DVD players. The motion-picture, computer, and consumer-electronics industries formed the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) (plaintiff) to grant and administer licenses to the CSS technology. In 1999, Jon Johansen reverse-engineered the CSS encryption algorithm and master keys and wrote a decryption program called DeCSS to enable users to copy and distribute DVD movies. Johansen posted the DeCSS source code on a website, and it was soon republished on several other websites, including a site maintained by Andrew Bunner (defendant). DVD CCA sued Bunner in California state court, seeking injunctive relief for the alleged misappropriation of DVD CCA’s trade secrets relating to the CSS technology. The trial court concluded that DVD CCA was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that Bunner had disclosed DVD CCA’s trade secrets in violation of California law and that DVD CCA would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction. The court thus issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Bunner from posting or otherwise disclosing the DeCSS program, the CSS algorithm, the master keys, and any other information derived from the proprietary CSS information. Bunner appealed, and the California Court of Appeal reversed. The court held that even though DVD CCA was likely to prevail on the merits and would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, the injunctive relief granted by the trial court violated the First Amendment because DeCSS was pure speech, and the injunction was an invalid prior restraint on that speech. The California Supreme Court granted review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)

Concurrence (Moreno, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 604,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership