Sima Products Remain Enjoined Under DMCA

Macrovision v. Sima Products Corp. (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2006)

In this opinion, the district court considered Sima's motion for reconsideration "of the Court's Order granting a preliminary injunction, which was issued April 20, 2006 . . . ." The court recognized that Sima correctly asserted "the Order was erroneously issued pursuant to Section 1201(a)(2) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" and should have been issued pursuant to Section 1201(b), but did not find the error significant. First, the court clarified the difference between the Section 1201(a)(2) and Section 1201(b) in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:

Section 1201(a)(2) differs from § 1201(b) in that the former covers technological measures “that effectively controls access” to a protected work, where as the latter covers those “that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner” in a protected work. “[A] technological measure ‘effectively controls access to a work’ if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.”17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3)(B). Such is not the case with Macrovision's ACP.

Second, the court rejected any argument that Macrovision's protection scheme did not protect the rights of a copyright owner:

Sima strains greatly to argue that Macrovision's Analog Copy Protection (ACP) does not “effectively protect the rights of a copyright owner” because it allegedly does not “in the ordinary course of its operation” prevent, restrict, or limit the exercise of a copyright owner's rights. This assertion does not hold up, because it is contrary to the plain meaning of the statute. Macrovision's ACP, in the ordinary course of this operation, is to hinder the making of videotape copies of protected DVDs. Such copying is among a copyright owner's rights. Furthermore, if Macrovision's technology were not thus effective, why would Sima have to manufacture devices that circumvent it?

My earlier determination as to the purpose and marketing of Sima's devices remain. The additional arguments Sima makes in support of its motion are merely improper repetitions of or elaborations upon its prior arguments, which have already been considered and rejected.

Holding: "[T]he motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order of April 20, 2006 is denied."