321 Studio Looses First Round

[smearbrick1]

So, why aren't the creators of CSS suing?

Wouldn't this be more relevant to the issue at hand?

It's simply a wolf in sheep's clothing. The MPAA shows up and screams that copyright laws are being violated because people can copy their dvd's using a process that circumvents the encryption. The real issue is that people can backup their movies... has nothing to do with circumventing anything. Of course it's legal to capture. Then again, you have to circumvent Macrovision.

Does the MPAA represent the architects of CSS?

[sammie]

I don't have the DMCA text at hand, but I am pretty sure I remeber that there was a clause saying explicitly that nothing in the law was to be taken as infringing on fair use as it has been in common effect. Now as adam pointed out it has been debated endlessly here that if this ruling stands it certainly does put "fair use" and DMCA at loggerheads.

The analysis of the 9th Court as often out of step, is also accurate, but it is a big loss in that it does rule against a product that bent over backwards to at position itself as a legal "fair use" product. I think the first real test beyond this will be if 321 can when some sort of stay or injuction. They can obviously demonstrate finacial harm if the ruling is allowed to go into effect, but the question is will they be able to convice a higher judge of any chance of winning on appeal.

[MrMungus]

I don't have the DMCA text at hand, but I am pretty sure I remeber that there was a clause saying explicitly that nothing in the law was to be taken as infringing on fair use as it has been in common effect. Now as adam pointed out it has been debated endlessly here that if this ruling stands it certainly does put "fair use" and DMCA at loggerheads.

The analysis of the 9th Court as often out of step, is also accurate, but it is a big loss in that it does rule against a product that bent over backwards to at position itself as a legal "fair use" product. I think the first real test beyond this will be if 321 can when some sort of stay or injuction. They can obviously demonstrate finacial harm if the ruling is allowed to go into effect, but the question is will they be able to convice a higher judge of any chance of winning on appeal.

Anyone have a link to the 9th saying that copying video is considered "Fair Use"?

[adam]

some of the judges took an unexpected analysis. They said that we actually DO have a Fair Use right to backup legally owned DVDs

Where did you read this? I don't see it.

I read the judge's opinion on Westlaw. You can read about some of Judge Illston's comments here. http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5162749.html?tag=nefd_top

So, why aren't the creators of CSS suing?

This was already tried, in a sense, against Jon Johansen. The court declined to make CSS decryption itself illegal since it has valid legal uses, to play DVDs on Linux for example.

This current case against 321 Studio's is brought under the DMCA, which gives copyright holders added protection against digitally bypassing protection methods in order to effect copyright infringment. The movie studios are obviously the copyright holders and the MPAA is the organization which protects their collective rights. It makes perfect sense that they are suing. The allegation is that 321 Studio's software is using DeCSS to allow people to illegally copy DVDs. The court ruled that this is a violation of the movie studio's copyrights, and that the software must remove the DeCSS portion of its code.

[yoda21000]

so basically you would somehow have to buy or own the CSS portion if they have to remove that part from their program. They could also make or design their own CSS somehow to keep

[smearbrick1]

What about Anti-trust? Has anyone ever tried suing the MPAA (or those they represent) for forcing CSS down the public's throat. I think I remember a few companies being a little miffed when microsoft integrated IE into every fiber of Windows... CSS is integrated into every fiber of commercial DVD video. This forces the average consumer to buy an official dvd player, or official dvd decoder hardware/software to watch dvd's. There is no alternative. If you want to watch dvd's you must deal with CSS! If you want to use windows (95% of us do) you must deal with the integration of Internet Explorer.

[adam]

yoda21000: If you want to continue using new versions of 321 Studio's software on CSS encrypted DVDs than you will have to use an external DVD ripper which supports DeCSS routines. If 321 Studio does not get a stay on the injunction then they will change their product line to remove the DeCSS portion of their software.

smearbrick1. Its not anti-trust. CSS encryption is a part of the DVD standard and as such all DVD compliant hardware and software is designed to implement it. For commercially bought DVDs played on DVD compliant players, its a non-issue and you'd never even knew it was there. Anyone can pay the licensing to add CSS encryption to their DVDs (of course its only supported in pressed media not dvd-r/w or dvd+r). No DVD format will ever pass submission by the DVD Forum without some form of protection. Copyright holders who invest millions of dollars in the products which they mass produce should have some assurance that the average person won't be able to make an illegal copy..at least not too easily. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[MrMungus]

some of the judges took an unexpected analysis. They said that we actually DO have a Fair Use right to backup legally owned DVDs

Where did you read this? I don't see it.

I read the judge's opinion on Westlaw. You can read about some of Judge Illston's comments here. http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5162749.html?tag=nefd_top

Hmm...mentions fair use, not copying the whole DVD. Ah well, I'm tired of arguing it.

[adam]

Didn't realize there was any argument. Its dicta, it doesn't hold any legal significance, it simply gives us some insight into the judge's decision. 321 Studios argued that consumers have a Fair Use right to make backups of legally owned DVDS, and obviously this implies the whole DVD. That was their whole defense. The judge said even if this is the case, you can still make copies through non-digital means, meaning you still get your Fair Use right without coming under the effect of the DMCA. And again, obviously we are talking about the whole DVD.

The judge clearly implied that Fair Use may protect full DVD backups. But of course her analysis did not have to go any further than that because she concluded that it would not matter anyway. However, look at recent developments like the new protection which even stops analogue recordings and the judge's backdoor excuse to avoid Fair Use goes out the window. This is surely something that will be brought up in future cases (don't see how this can be brought up on appeal of this case.)

[MrMungus]

Didn't realize there was any argument. Its dicta, it doesn't hold any legal significance, it simply gives us some insight into the judge's decision. 321 Studios argued that consumers have a Fair Use right to make backups of legally owned DVDS, and obviously this implies the whole DVD. That was their whole defense. The judge said even if this is the case, you can still make copies through non-digital means, meaning you still get your Fair Use right without coming under the effect of the DMCA. And again, obviously we are talking about the whole DVD.

The judge clearly implied that Fair Use may protect full DVD backups. But of course her analysis did not have to go any further than that because she concluded that it would not matter anyway. However, look at recent developments like the new protection which even stops analogue recordings and the judge's backdoor excuse to avoid Fair Use goes out the window. This is surely something that will be brought up in future cases (don't see how this can be brought up on appeal of this case.)

No. The judge said that people had fair use rights that supercede the DMCA, *not* that those rights include copying the whole DVD. Just because 321 was allowing people to copy the whole DVD and just because the judge said that fair use rights may not be abridged does not mean that fair use includes copying the whole DVD. You're reading it the way you want to.

[Roundabout]

More from the AP wire this morning. Interesting comment from Valenti. Obvious that he doesn't give a damn about any rights for the consumer...but then again, we already knew that.

321 Studios Forges Ahead

Associated Press

04:14 PM Feb. 23, 2004 PT

NEW YORK -- The maker of DVD-duplication software ruled in violation of copyright law is nevertheless pledging to keep selling it -- but without a built-in tool for descrambling movies.

In order for the popular DVD Copy Plus and DVD X Copy programs to successfully make copies of DVDs, users will now need to obtain a separate descrambler that is widely available on the Internet, said Robert Moore, founder and president of 321 Studios.

"It's a hollow victory" for movie studios, Moore said.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco gave 321 Studios a week to stop making, distributing "or otherwise trafficking in any type of DVD circumvention software."

She agreed with the Hollywood studios' contention that 321's DVD-copying products violate the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which prohibits the circumvention of antipiracy measures such as the Content Scramble System, or CSS, that is used to protect DVDs.

Makers of DVD players license keys to descramble CSS-protected DVDs, and Illston deemed 321's use of those keys unauthorized.

The ruling does not affect 321's other software for copying computer games or creating DVDs from home videos, PowerPoint presentations and digital photos. It also does not cover the scores of DVD-copy products available elsewhere online, often for free.

Moore said 321 would fully comply while it appeals the ruling. Retailers are also encouraged to return unsold copies to the company, he said, though the judge did not specifically order that.

Russell Frackman, a lawyer for the movie studios that brought the lawsuit, questioned whether 321's response was consistent with the spirit of Illston's order.

"You can't sell the product with a wink and a nod and then tell your users, 'What you need to do is get the ripper (descrambling) component ... from another source,'" Frackman said. "The law generally does not permit one to do indirectly what they can't do directly." ( Tough shit, guys. You can't stop everyone...)

The Chesterfield, Missouri-based 321 had argued that its products merely give consumers fair use of the movies they've purchased, including backing up expensive copies of children's movies in case the originals get scratched.

Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, has suggested that consumers have no legitimate need for such software, telling The Associated Press in November, "If you buy a DVD you have a copy. If you want a backup copy you buy another one."

To comply with the ruling, Moore said, manufacturing plants are being retooled to produce versions without the descrambling tool, and the company's website will start selling the new version later this week.

Descrambler-free software already is sold in Japan and Australia because retailers there were fearful about violating copyright law, Moore said. He said worldwide partners will be encouraged to use the new version, even though the U.S. court order technically does not apply abroad.

The company will also remove antipiracy features that Moore said had been included "as a show of good faith." They include embedding a disclaimer on all copied DVDs that they were not originals. Another feature being stripped had prevented further duplication. (makes it even better, when you use it with DVD Decrypter, no more annoying messages and you can make copies of copies. This is actually an improvement!)

Moore said the company would likely lose hundreds of thousands of dollars destroying the versions with the descrambling tool built in, on top of the millions of dollars already spent on legal fees.

Despite selling about 1 million copies of DVD Copy Plus and DVD X Copy in the United States, Moore said, "we haven't made any profits yet because we've been giving it to the lawyers."

[mmasw]

To put this case into perspective, this case was decided by the 9th Circuit. This Circuit has a history and a reputation for basically just doing the opposite of everyone else, and honestly they are kinda the laughing stock of jurisprudence.

you'll excuse me for saying this....but that's a load of bullshit

jurisprudence my ass....are you a member of the christian coalition?

the 9th represents a lot of states but the vast majority of the people reside on the 'left coast'. as in CA, WA, OR....

A very effective argument can be made that the 9th represents the people there a hell of a lot better then the supreme court does.

and it's only the supreme court that can determine how "laughable" are the legal opinions of the 9th

a lot of people...myself included... find the supreme court to have become a institition corrupted by ideology. The vast majority of legal scholars....including a great deal of conservative ones....found the bush v gore decision to be the most laughable/corrupt decision since dred scott. And of course there's the recent spectacle of Scalia going duck hunting with cheney while he's deciding a case directly related to cheney....quack,quack.

The 5 right wing supremes may find the 9th a 'laughingstock' , but I guarantee those same judges will find any circuit decision that favors coporate power....as the 321 decision does....to be just ducky

[LanEvo7]

The judge said even if this is the case, you can still make copies through non-digital means, meaning you still get your Fair Use right without coming under the effect of the DMCA. And again, obviously we are talking about the whole DVD.

Doesn't all commercial dvds have Macrovision to prevent copying using a VCR? So you'd be bypassing another form "copy protection" anyway. So I guess the only way of backing up your video is to record it with a Video Camera.

[adam]

No. The judge said that people had fair use rights that supercede the DMCA, *not* that those rights include copying the whole DVD. Just because 321 was allowing people to copy the whole DVD and just because the judge said that fair use rights may not be abridged does not mean that fair use includes copying the whole DVD. You're reading it the way you want to.

MrMungus your analsis makes absolutely zero sense. Of course people have Fair Use rights which supercede the DMCA, the language of the DMCA specifically says that it is PRE-EMPTED by Fair Use. Nothing written anywhere in the DMCA can be used to prevent anyone from exercising their Fair Use rights. If we were talking about partial or complete copying for parody, education, or criticism (which all are expressly protected under Fair Use) then under the judge's analysis she would have reached the same result. In her view it doesn't matter whether the right is protected under Fair Use or not, because preventing the ability to digitally copying it doesn't deny you that right since you still have analogue means to make the copy.

The whole point is that 321 Studio's argument was that we do have a Fair Use right to copy a whole DVD and thus the DMCA should not prohibit the tools used to do so. The judge implied that your Fair Use right to backup a DVD is not infringed upon by limiting your copying to non-digital means.

I have an idea MrMungus. Before you post again how about you actually read the judge's opinion. You are basing your analysis on a journalist's summarization. I am looking at the actual opinion written by the judge.

But like I said this is just dicta. It means nothing more than if she mentioned that she ate Cheerios for breakfast that day. It just gives us some insight into what the judge based her ruling on. So this is really not worth fighting over, but then again I never thought it would even be questioned since the judge says it herself.

[adam]

you'll excuse me for saying this....but that's a load of bullshit

A very effective argument can be made that the 9th represents the people there a hell of a lot better then the supreme court does.

and it's only the supreme court that can determine how "laughable" are the legal opinions of the 9th

Whether or not the 9th Circuit is laughable is obviously a matter of opinion, and you certainly have a right to feel the way you do. However, I base my statements on actual caselaw and statistics, and I think you are basing your opinion on a lack of understanding as to how our legal system works, which is clearly evidenced by the fact that you say the Supreme Court is the only one who can determine how "laughable" the 9th Circuit is.

We have two types of authority in regards to case-law, mandatory and pursuasive. Mandatory law is established by a higher court and lower courts under that jurisidction are required to follow it. If the 9th Circuit makes a ruling it is binding on State California courts, for example (not counting possible conflict of laws analysis). However that ruling is simply persuasive in regards to all Federal and all State courts in all other jurisdictions. No court is required to follow that other court's ruling, but it is used as evidence for support of that legal reasoning.

So the Supreme Court is really not a very good judge of the 9th Circuit's opinion at all, simply because they do not have occasion to review their rulings nearly as often as other Federal and State courts have occasion to consider them. The Supreme Court does consistently overrule California and 9th Circuit decisions. You can take that however you want. However, the more important STATISTICAL FACT is that the 9th Circuit's persuasive caselaw is consistently given negative treatment by other jurisdictions. This means another court analizes the ruling in relation to some live action, and then spefically rule that they disapprove of that ruling and decline to apply it to their case or jurisdiction. If the nation as a collective whole, and as its divided states consistently dissapprove of the 9th Circuit's rulings, doesn't that say something?

Furthermore, you can look at the various opinions used for different matters and it is undeniably clear that whether or not you agree with the 9th Circuit's view of that particular issue, their holding does differ greatly from the rest of the nation. I am in law school in Texas. Whenever we learn a new rule we have to learn the 4 variations of it. We learn the majority rule (majority of states follow it), the minority rule (substantial amount follow it but less than majority), we learn Texas's view if it ever differs from majority or minority, and finally we learn California's rule (has most impact on 9th Circuit rulings.) We learn the California rule specifically because it almost always differs from both minority and majority. Again, take this however you will but the absolute fact is that on the majority of legal issues, California uses an approach which is not even accepted by a minority of other jurisdictions.

Finally, I do think that the professionals in the field of law have a large impact on the reputation of the various jurisdictions. After all, if you are going to go to one court and argue that they should rule like the 9th Circuit did, you would want that Circuit to be respected right? Well hang out in any of the restaurants around the courthouse for half an hour and I guarantee that you will hear a joke about the 9th Circuit.

Laughable? Maybe I don't quite have the authority to say that. But there is no denying that the 9th Circuit lacks persuasiveness and that any ruling they make must be taken with a grain of salt. This is clearly evidenced through case-law.

[adam]

The judge said even if this is the case, you can still make copies through non-digital means, meaning you still get your Fair Use right without coming under the effect of the DMCA. And again, obviously we are talking about the whole DVD.

Doesn't all commercial dvds have Macrovision to prevent copying using a VCR? So you'd be bypassing another form "copy protection" anyway. So I guess the only way of backing up your video is to record it with a Video Camera.

Macrovision is an analogue protection device to prevent ANALOGUE copying. The DMCA stands for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA does not have any effect on macrovision, only on (among other things not relevant to this discussion) DIGITAL protection devices. The judge did not address whether it is legal to bypass Macrovision, (I believe there is already clear case-law holding that it is subject to your respective state's laws), as I stated before she never had to go this far, she simply ruled that any possible Fair Use right protecting DVD backups was not infringed upon by the enjoining of 321 Studio's software under the DMCA. The DMCA leaves the analogue route unregulated, and that's what the judge ruled was controlling.

BTW: sorry for the repeated postings, but they were all too long to put in one.

[yellotang]

Wow, this thread has it all,
Christian Bashing,
Conservative Bashing,
Bush Bashing.

And I thought this was a thread on 321 and the courts.

[adam]

In defense of this thread, all that came from just one post.

In defense of myself I am neither Christian, conservative, nor a particular fan of Bush.

[FOO]

Christian Bashing,
Conservative Bashing,
Bush Bashing.

Why not ? It all comes under the same heading of idiot bashing.

[fravel]

Just a laughable thought:
What would happen if everybody that copies movies stops doing so for a year; and at the end of that year, let the MPAA make public how much money they've "lost"?
Oh, boy! "You can enter your home, but you can't open the door to enter."

[Perro Grande]

Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, has suggested that consumers have no legitimate need for such software, telling The Associated Press in November, "If you buy a DVD you have a copy. If you want a backup copy you buy another one."

That REALLY sums up the attitude of the MPAA and the RIAA, doesn't it?

That, folks, is what we're dealing with... This clown obviously has NO IDEA what it is like to spend a meaningful, measurable percentage of one's income on DVD's and CD's, only to see them ruined by accidents/children/etc. To make matters worse, they have given us no recourse as consumers for this kind of event or for when their product is blatently inferior. What a load of crap!

Only the government has a better racket -- they can tax the same object time after time after time and get away with it. The MPAA/RIAA goons want us to pay for the same DVD/CD time after time after time...

I'm about ready to tell them to stick their products you-know-where and listen to music on the radio and watch movies on TV...

[BobK]

'What you need to do is get the ripper (descrambling) component ... from another source,'" Frackman said. "The law generally does not permit one to do indirectly what they can't do directly."

That's pretty much bullsh*t. The law does allow one to do indirectly what they can't do directly (just check how congressmen and senators closely follow campaign finance laws for a one good example of that.

And you can certainly tell people pretty much whatever you want- that's covered by the same free speech laws/rights that allow you to post bomb making instructions on the internet.

[mmasw]

I am in law school in Texas.

well, at least that would explain your propensity to use 47 words when 3 would do.

you're the one that used the term "laughingstock" as a rather perjorative label for an entire judicial circuit, when the ruling under discussion was that issued by a single judge.

In other words, you were injecting a political observation, and I would estimate that every single judge in the circuit you find laughable could easily dance legal circles around a texas law student.

However, setting aside our mutual appreciation, I reiterate my point that the current federal judiciary may be just as equally solicitous towards coporate interests at the expense of consumers as this single judge in the 9th circuit was.

dissing the ruling as a "laughingstock" because of it's geography seemed to be a particularly vapid point.

As far as the 9th circuit lacking "persuasiveness".....I imagine it does as viewed from texas. The view is quite different in the 9th circuit's jurisdiction however. I'm surprised a law student needs that instruction.

and finally.....I damn well guarantee there are a hell of a lot more jokes floating around about texas then the 9th circuit. So by your own reasoning, texas is a bigger "laughingstock" then the 9th circuit.

#1 on the chucklemeter

I suppose one could submit that the 'laughingstock' gambit has little relevance, whether it's my version or yours.

It is fun though, thanks for playing......

[Bondiablo]

Macrovision is an analogue protection device to prevent ANALOGUE copying. The DMCA stands for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA does not have any effect on macrovision, only on (among other things not relevant to this discussion) DIGITAL protection devices.

I see people say this all the time, that the DMCA has nothing to do with analog, but then why do the VCR manufacturers say things like this?

All VCRs, including the Dual-Deck VCR, are affected by Federal legislation that was passed in October 1998, commonly referred to as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. One of the effects of this new law requires that all VCRs sold after April 28th, 2000, recognize a type of anticopying signal that prevents consumers from making a usable copy of copy-protected videotapes.

[adam]

mmasw you seem to have somehow taken what I said personally. Contrary to what you must think, I was not attempting to take a cheap shot at the 9th Circuit. As I said in my original post I was simply trying to put things in perspective. The simple FACT is that a substantial portion (maybe majority) of 9th Circuit rulings which are appealed to the Supreme Court are overruled. Another simple FACT is that a a substantial portion of 9th Circuit rulings are expressly disfavored by foreign jurisdictions and thus more likely than not will never apply anywhere other than the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction. Seeing as how we are talking about a 9th Circuit ruling which we aren't fond of, don't you think these FACTS do put things a little more into perspective? Your cheap shots against me, on the other hand, add nothing to this discussion.

Bondiablo that's a good question. I didn't realize that VCRs had that warning. I haven't owned a VCR since the 80's. I'll try to look into it if you are interested.

[Bondiablo]

I would definitely like to know. As I said I see that often. I even tried reading through the DMCA once but that was just insane, makes me wonder if the people who wrote it even know what it does.

[adam]

Well I stand corrected. What happened was that in enacting the DMCA it incorporated several world treaties which were then being negotiated, which specifically required that future hardware (had 2 years to comply) contained protection against analogue copying. And of course under section 1201 of the DMCA bypassing macrovision would apply as a violation of the statute. I, and I assume many others, was basing my assumption on the committee notes which basically state that the legislative intent in enacting the law was to give copyright holders additional protection in a new millennium where advancements in the digital realm gave people new tools with which to infringe upon copyrights.

So when judge llston ruled that, "blocking people from making perfect digital copies of their DVDs [does] not unconstitutionally hamper free speech or fair-use rights [because] people were free to make copies of movies in other, nondigital ways that would give them access to the same content, even if not in the same, pristine form" I guess she really is talking about sticking a camera in front of your tv as LanEvo7 sugested. Either that or she just doesn't understand the procedure that goes into copying an analogue signal. My guess is that its the latter.

Oh well, I think this ruling is just one rung in the ladder. 321 Studio's has said that they have not even turned a profit yet because of all their litigation costs...if you believe them. Point is they say they are in this for the long haul. It would really be interesting if this issue reached the Supreme Court. I think its a rip issue.

[mmasw]

mmasw you seem to have somehow taken what I said personally.

not at all.....I have a very thick skin but do usually enjoy a good food fight. Truly, no offense taken .

Contrary to what you must think, I was not attempting to take a cheap shot at the 9th Circuit.

uhhhh.......so down there "laughingstock" is a term of respect?

The simple FACT is that a substantial portion (maybe majority) of 9th Circuit rulings which are appealed to the Supreme Court are overruled.

ok....you're mr law student, tell me if I have this wrong. Doesn't the fact that the SC agrees to review a lower court's ruling mean that there is a good chance it will be overturned or clarified? How many rulings does the 9th make every year that are not reviewed by the SC? Isn't the 9th the largest circuit and does that mean the sheer volume of decisions ensures the largest number of reviews?

And finally, isn't it possible.....no, make that almost assured, that if we had a liberal supreme court and a conservative circuit, that particular circuit would then become the 'laughingstock' with a higher then average rate of SC intervention?

In other words, a person could make the case that the rate of dispute between the 9th and the supremes was more a function of ideology then of judicial acumen.

Another simple FACT is that a a substantial portion of 9th Circuit rulings are expressly disfavored by foreign jurisdictions and thus more likely than not will never apply anywhere other than the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction.

that could be true. However, since around 60 million people fall into that circuit's jurisdiction, one could argue that the rulings there have quite substantial legal impact.

And wouldn't the inverse also be true? Maybe the perspective of the people in San Francisco or Portland is quite different then those in Waco or Mobile. And wouldn't that be reflected in the judges.

Maybe you sit there, look at us in the 9th and see 'laughable" and we look at you in yours and think the same.

Seeing as how we are talking about a 9th Circuit ruling which we aren't fond of, don't you think these FACTS do put things a little more into perspective?

Facts????...."substantial portion" is not a fact....18% may be a fact but "substantial portion" has not nearly enough precision to constitute a fact, especially when combined with "(maybe majority)"

you use imprecise terms with no context and ascribe to them the stature of FACTS. I'm not persuaded.

hey....here's a fact....I'm tall (you believe that right?)

Your cheap shots against me, on the other hand, add nothing to this discussion.

well that's wrong.....they've at least added to my amusement by this thread.

and truly, Adam, if you consider my tiny jabs to be "cheap shots" then you may want to consider a less confrontational occupation then the law.

[adam]

If it makes you feel any better I will just say that what I said is nothing more than my opinion, and others can form their own opinions on the matter by looking at prior case-law and statistics. There, you can't argue with that. Now please, lets get back on topic.

[MrMungus]

MrMungus your analsis makes absolutely zero sense. Of course people have Fair Use rights which supercede the DMCA, the language of the DMCA specifically says that it is PRE-EMPTED by Fair Use. Nothing written anywhere in the DMCA can be used to prevent anyone from exercising their Fair Use rights. If we were talking about partial or complete copying for parody, education, or criticism (which all are expressly protected under Fair Use) then under the judge's analysis she would have reached the same result. In her view it doesn't matter whether the right is protected under Fair Use or not, because preventing the ability to digitally copying it doesn't deny you that right since you still have analogue means to make the copy.

I know this.

The whole point is that 321 Studio's argument was that we do have a Fair Use right to copy a whole DVD and thus the DMCA should not prohibit the tools used to do so. The judge implied that your Fair Use right to backup a DVD is not infringed upon by limiting your copying to non-digital means.

Was it? Link?

I have an idea MrMungus. Before you post again how about you actually read the judge's opinion. You are basing your analysis on a journalist's summarization. I am looking at the actual opinion written by the judge.

Link?