DVD-CCA vs. Pavlovich deals with the juristiction of internet publications and accountability for content. Pavlovich was an open source devleoper who founded LiVid (Linux Video Project). They're goal was the provide DVD playabck support for Linux computers. Part of the project involved using the DeCSS algorithm which Pavlovich made available online. In his testimony, he says that he knew that there was questionable legality of using and spreading the code when he originally came across the algorithm, but he did it anyway.

Howver, the opinion of the court written by Justice Brown finds that Pavlovich cannot be forced to stand trial in California for the publishing of DeCSS on his web site. Pavlovich is not a California resident, performs no business in California, and was not actively encouraging California residents to use his algorithm to harm Californinan businesses. Brown determined that he cannot be held responsible for any negative economic impacts on California businesses that his posting caused.

The outcome of this case is important when considering the Dmitry Skylarov situation. Skylarov was detained for months for breaking a law of a country which he was not a citizen of, nor was he present in at the time he allegedly violated the DMCA. Not too long after, the courts are ruling that the liability can be restricted by state lines.

Another interesting aspect to this case is the dissenting opinion by Justice Baxter, particularly his wording. He critizies Pavlovich's "network of 'open source' associates'" in their efforts "to undermine and defeat the very purposes of hte licensed CSS encryption." Baxter tries to connect open source and piracy, a misconception that many people have. This association hurts legitimate developers and their efforts.

Baxter's opinions also details the inherent incompatabilities with the open source movement and closed DRM.  An open source project could never be licensed by the DVD-CCA because the stipulations would never allow certain parts of the code to be revealed.  He also compilcates the decision by discussing the fact that the whole point of the the DMCA to restrict playback ability.  Whatever their motivations were, they were making use of a technology that the DVD-CCA should have full control of and was developed through illegal means under US law.  Baxter determines that, jurisdiction issues asside, the LiViD developers should be held responsible for their development with an illegal technology.

In Blizzard vs. BNETD, Blizzard used the DMCA to prevent open source projects from interoperating with its software. Blizzard software comes with the ability to play multiplayer games online through their Battle.net service. In order to combat piracy, Blizzard requires users of Battle.net to have valid CD keys and prevented people using the same CD Key from connecting simultaneously. A group of users enjoyed the game but disliked Battle.net due to people cheating in the games. They sought to create their own alternative, resulting in www.bnetd.org. This site gave users with Blizzard software to connect and play multiplayer games through their server. This open source project was posted on the web and other people used and modified to code for similar purposes.

In interpreting this case, the court claimed that BNETD was in violation of several provisions and was not protected by the reverse engineering for interoperability exemption. BNETD did not check to see if the user had a valid CD Key before allowing them to connect to the server. The court interpreted this as circumvention, as BNETD allowed users to experience online multiplayer games with illegal copies of Blizzard software.

This case determines that plug-ins could be held responsible for their functionality when applied to pirated software. Had the plug-in been designed to bypass CD Key checks and then connect to Battle.net, the decision would make more sense. However, BNETD wrote the program to connect to their own servers, and just didn't happen to check to for a valid software copy. Holding plug-in writers accountable for license checking is a dangerous precedent. Open source developers won't want to write a plug-in if they can be sued for the misuse of their product in combination with pirated software. The right to author extensions to software and market them has been around for years before the DMCA and now has been compromised by the misuse of its provisions.

John Gilmore looks at the effect the lack of open standards has hurt the digital author not associated with major studios. He discusses several examples, such as Apple's iDVD and Sony's MiniDisc format. He is legally unable to copy his brother's wedding using the MiniDisc format, even though he holds the copyright because it assumes that he's trying to pirate content. With iDVD, he comments on Apple's marketing, which states that “the major consumer applications for recordable DVD will be home movie editing and storage and digital photo storage” and not potential fair-uses like time-shifting digital content. He further points out Apple is not offering authors the ability to encrypt their own copyrighted films and materials. If copy protection is so essential to protecting the copyright holders intellectual property, why isn't readily available to all copyright holders?

Where copy protection goes wrong is that it takes away rights from the new digital author and monopolizes the protections of them for only a select few. Competing open DRM formats have begun to emerge to fill this gap. However, a young filmmaker needs to ensure that his video is as compatible as possible. He now has the choice between protecting his work but preventing it from being played on DVD players that don't support the new open formats (most of them), or exposing his work to piracy.

Gilmore's arguments shows a strong legitimate need for an open source developers to develop applications that might be in violation of the DMCA. An open source application might expose certain algorithms and codes, and even development of a closed source application would likely require breaking encryption at some point in the product's development.  The courts and the copyright office generally use the phrase “mere inconvenience” and wave their hands at demonstrated harm to consumers not being able to access their digital content.  However, requiring young authors to get picked up by a major licensed company in order to receive protection can hardly be so easily ignored.  The best solution to lowering the barrier of entry for copyright protection is through an open source DRM standard that either is adopted by major players or at least cocurrently supported with their proprietary technologies.