The producer of DVD Copy Plus is seeking a declaratory judgement that their software, which permits users to copy DVD movies to CD-Rs (although of lower quality), does not violate the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I'm torn. On the one hand a little company is standing up to Hollywood and the DMCA for fair use rights. On the other hand, I'm sick of the spam their affiliates keep sending me (Copy My DVD). Not really, I'm clearly more sick of Hollywood. Go 321 Studios! Read their Press Release and the Complaint [PDF].
C|Net News reports on this new case (Upstart seeks court OK for DVD copying). Newsbytes also has an account (Firm Sues Movie Studios To Defend DVD-Copying Software). The story was custom made for Slashdot readers (321 Studios Plays It Safe Against the DMCA).
Notes on complaint follow...
This first thing I noticed is that the DVD Copy Control Association (DVDCCA), which actually controls the use of DVD encryption, is not named as a defendant. As I have argued elsewhere, the real party at issue should be the DVDCCA. Since the DVDCCA is involved in a trade secrets case involving DeCSS in California, it will be interesting to see if they are joined as a party in this case, or choose to intervene to protect their interests. For background on the DVDCCA case, see (EFF: DVDCCA Case Archive). What effect this lawsuit will have on the case will be interesting, particularly as the complaint specifically refers to DeCSS as part of their general allegations.
The case also focuses almost exclusively on the creation of backup or archival copies of movies. They are not claiming a right under 17 USC 117(a)(2), which explicitly protects the making of archival copies of computer programs. A good thing too, since they would lose. However, it doesn't seem clear to me why they are not raising other fair uses as part of their suit as well.
A or B? There are two anti-circumvention provisions of section 1201 of the DMCA. Section 1201(a) deals with access control devices and section 1201(b) deals with devices that protect other rights of the copyright holder, such as copy protection. In the Universal v. Reimerdes case (aka the 2600 DeCSS case), the movie studios charged both 1201(a) and 1201(b) violations. Reimerdes was found liable for violating both. Furthermore, a strong case can be made that the DVD encryption scheme, CSS, does not violate 1201(a), but only 1201(b). Additionally, 1201(b) is arguably on much shakier constitutional ground. However, the complaint only mentions 1201(a). Why?
In a somewhat related story, C|Net carries a Reuters wirestory about a former co-chairman and co-chief executive of Warner Bros. studio calling for his former colleagues to change their business plans (Semel blasts Hollywood for Net absence). The executive is now chairman of Yahoo!. What was he saying while he was part of Hollywood I wonder?