321 Studios is heading to court to find out why you can legally make copies of video tapes and CDs, but not DVDs.

[ ... ]

The software maker plans to release on October 31 a product called DVD X Copy, which allows users to create "bit-for-bit" copies of their DVDs using a standard recordable DVD drive, says company president Robert Moore.

While the software promises to give consumers the same privileges they have for copying VHS movies, it is potentially against the law, according to industry experts. A U.S. legislation called the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act deems it illegal to distribute tools that circumvent copy prevention technologies used to protect DVD content. That is just what 321 Studios' software does.

[ ... ]

"We believe those provisions in the DMCA are unconstitutional because they basically trump the fair use rights," says Michael Page, an attorney with Kecker and Van Nest in San Francisco, who is part of the legal team representing 321 Studios in its lawsuit. "If you make it illegal to make a backup copy of a work that you lawfully own, you have overstepped the legitimate bounds of the Copyright Act."

The DMCA ties the hands of software makers, says von Lohmann, who has helped fight similar cases against the DMCA. It is not against the law for users to own copies of their DVD movies, but the DMCA prohibits the distribution of any tools that make such copying possible.

"If someone wants to make fair use of a DVD they bought, they need to circumvent the copy protection technology to do that," von Lohmann says. "The DMCA would arguably make that illegal.

"If nobody can build the tools, then essentially we've all been denied our fair use rights," he says.

8:46:38 PM    

Oct. 14 issue [~]  Larry Lessig admits it: he[base ']s nervous. Who wouldn[base ']t be? This week the brainy Stanford law professor makes his first appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court[~]barely a decade after clerking for Justice Antonin Scalia[~]to argue a case that could redirect millions of dollars, rejigger the entertainment menu of the entire nation and liberate Mickey Mouse.

IN ITS NARROWEST context, Eldred v. Ashcroft deals with the seemingly arcane issue of the length of copyrights for books, films and music. But it[base ']s actually a high-noon showdown between two great industries at odds in the age of the Internet. In one corner there are the big studios and record labels, intent on protecting their property and their turf; their success in winning congressional goodies has been more reliable than a Hollywood happy ending. In the other stand the forces of high-tech innovation, who until recently wore their distrust of government like a badge of pride. Now the techie crowd understands that if Big Media gets the government to help lock up its content, consumers will have less reason to buy new computers and software.
4:30:52 PM    

The Pledge of Resistance

We believe that as people living in the United States it is our responsibility to resist the injustices done by our government, in our names

Not in our name will you wage endless war there can be no more deaths no more transfusions of blood for oil

Not in our name will you invade countries bomb civilians, kill more children letting history take its course over the graves of the nameless

Not in our name will you erode the very freedoms you have claimed to fight for

Not by our hands will we supply weapons and funding for the annihilation of families on foreign soil

Not by our mouths will we let fear silence us

Not by our hearts will we allow whole peoples or countries to be deemed evil

Not by our will and Not in our name

We pledge resistance

We pledge alliance with those who have come under attack for voicing opposition to the war or for their religion or ethnicity

We pledge to make common cause with the people of the world to bring about justice, freedom and peace

Another world is possible and we pledge to make it real.
4:02:07 PM    

Washington, DC - The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) recently tried to subvert the legal process and trounce on the privacy rights of Internet users by invoking an invalid subpoena on an Internet Service Provider (ISP). The subpoena sought to turn over user information of an individual allegedly engaged in peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing. The ISP - Verizon Online - refused to comply with the subpoena and the RIAA recently sued to enforce the subpoena.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed the first amicus brief in the matter in defense of the privacy of Internet users. Other industry and consumer groups followed suit.
3:50:37 PM