Quote:
Circumventing an Access Control Measure in Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) (that's (a)(1) ONLY that they are suing under.
28. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs 1-27.
29. Defendant circumvented the DISH Network security system in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) by the acts set forth above, including obtaining NagraStar’s control words from the IKS server and using the control words to view DISH Network’s satellite transmissions of television programming.
30. The DISH Network security system is a technological measure that effectively controls access to, copying, and distribution of copyrighted works. Defendant’s actions that constitute violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) were performed without permission, consent, or authorization of DISH Network or any owner of copyrighted programming broadcast on the DISH Network platform.
31. Defendant violated 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) willfully and for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
32. Defendant knew or should have known his actions were illegal and prohibited. Such violations have and will continue to cause damage to Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial. Unless restrained and enjoined by the Court, Defendant will continue to violate 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1).
No where in these allegations are they referencing ANY other clause of 17 U.S.C § 1201 EXCEPT (a)
Quote:
(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).
(C) During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine —
(i) the availability for use of copyrighted works;
(ii) the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;
(iii) the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;
(iv) the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and
(v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.
(D) The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.
(E) Neither the exception under subparagraph (B) from the applicability of the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A), nor any determination made in a rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), may be used as a defense in any action to enforce any provision of this title other than this paragraph.
Furthermore we know the clause that COULD actually be proven is the following:
Quote:
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
