United States v. Elcom Ltd.
203 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) prohibition on trafficking in technology primarily designed to circumvent measures that control the use of copyrighted works is a constitutional, content-neutral regulation of conduct that does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause or the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
Facts:
- Adobe Systems created the Acrobat eBook Reader, a software that allows publishers to sell electronic books ('ebooks') with technological use restrictions.
- These restrictions, managed by Adobe's Content Server, could limit a consumer's ability to copy, print, lend, or have the ebook read aloud.
- Elcomsoft Company Ltd. developed and sold a software product called the Advanced eBook Processor (AEBPR).
- AEBPR was designed to remove the use restrictions from Adobe's ebook files, converting them into an unprotected PDF format.
- This conversion allowed an ebook purchaser to make the file freely copyable and distributable.
- While AEBPR could enable lawful 'fair use' activities like making a personal backup copy, it could also be used to facilitate widespread copyright infringement.
Procedural Posture:
- Elcomsoft Company Ltd. was indicted for alleged violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(b)(1)(A) and (C).
- In the United States District Court, Elcomsoft filed motions to dismiss the indictment.
- Elcomsoft argued the indictment should be dismissed because the DMCA violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the First Amendment, and that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting the statute.
- The district court considered the motions, opposition briefs, and oral arguments before issuing its ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's prohibition on trafficking in technology that circumvents technological measures protecting a copyright owner's rights, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b), violate the First and Fifth Amendments or exceed Congress's constitutional authority under the Commerce and Intellectual Property Clauses?
Opinions:
Majority - Whyte, District Judge
No, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-trafficking provision is constitutional. The statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment, the First Amendment, and was a valid exercise of congressional power. On the Fifth Amendment due process claim, the statute is not unconstitutionally vague because it imposes a clear, blanket ban on trafficking in all circumvention tools, regardless of their potential for lawful uses; it does not require a person to guess which tools are legal and which are not. Regarding the First Amendment, the court applied intermediate scrutiny because the DMCA is a content-neutral regulation aimed at the functional aspect of computer code (what it does), not its expressive content (what it says). The law furthers the substantial government interests of preventing digital piracy and promoting electronic commerce, and it is narrowly tailored because it does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve those interests; fair use itself is not prohibited, merely made more technologically difficult. Finally, Congress had the authority to enact the DMCA under the Commerce Clause, as trafficking in circumvention devices has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. This exercise of power is not irreconcilably inconsistent with the Intellectual Property Clause, as it complements the purpose of copyright law and does not eliminate fair use, recapture public domain works, or create perpetual copyrights.
Analysis:
This decision represents an early and significant judicial validation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act against a host of constitutional challenges. By classifying the DMCA's anti-trafficking provision as a content-neutral regulation of conduct subject only to intermediate scrutiny, the court set a crucial precedent that made such laws much easier to defend. The ruling solidified the legal enforceability of Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies, affirming Congress's power to protect digital works by targeting the tools of circumvention, even if doing so incidentally burdens the ability of users to engage in technologically convenient fair uses. This case reinforced the shift in copyright protection from merely policing infringement to regulating the technology that enables it.
