1 June 2000

Note: Anyone can submit a statement in opposition to or in support of the MPAA motion for protective order to bar the press and non-parties from revealing deposition materials. It must be submitted in hardcopy (no fax, no e-mail) to Judge Kaplan by end of day June 2, 2000 at the address of the letter below.

Cryptome will accept e-mailed statements in opposition or in support to the motion, print them out and submit them to Judge Kaplan on behalf of authors who cannot themselves submit hardcopy. Send to: jy@jya.com, with the subject: Protect Free Speech.


Tel: 212 873 8700     Fax: 212 787 6102                             E-mail: jy@cryptome.org


By hand

1 June 2000

Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1310
New York, New York 10007-1312

Re: Universal City Studios, Inc., et al v. Reimerdes, et al, 00-CIV-0277
      Opposition to Motion for Protective Order

Dear Judge Kaplan,

This is submitted in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a protective order, dated May 30, 2000.

I own and operate a web site called Cryptome, <www.cryptome.org> and a twin <www.jya.com/crypto.htm>, which publishes documents on cryptography, computer and network security, and privacy, along with legal matters and governmental policy on these fields. It offers a number of litigation documents involving cryptography, including those of Bernstein v. USA and Junger v. Daley et al.

The site currently offers 33 documents related to DVD-litigation: 21 documents concerning Universal City Studios, Inc. et al v. Reimerdes et al, and 12 documents concerning the California state case, DVD-CCA v. McLaughlin et al . For listing see <http//jya.com/cryptout.htm#DVD-DeCSS>.

Since first offering these DVD-related documents beginning in December 1999, there have been over 500,000 downloads of them from over 50 countries worldwide, with daily downloads ranging from a single day peak of over 50,000 to an average for the full period of about 1,000 per day, to 600 on May 31, 2000.

The documents have been frequently cited in worldwide news reports on the cases and on other Web sites reporting on and discussing the matter. In particular, professional discussion has been fostered on the following specialized mail lists by the ready availability of the documents as the case proceeds:

Cyberia-L, a legal discussion list.
Cryptography, a cryptography discussion list.
Cypherpunks, a cryptography discussion list.
UK Crypto, a cryptography discussion list.

Should a protective order be granted, information about this matter will become more restricted at a time when there is intense worldwide public and professional interest.

I therefore oppose the motion and pray that you will deny it.

Further, I hope you will establish a beneficial precedent for rapid non-party access to case documents to enhance public awareness and to encourage informed debate on these lively and contentious matters -- which themselves have been stimulated by new technology for public discourse taking place in parallel to judicial proceedings as exemplified in our website Cryptome.


John Young