Findlaw reports that an American court has found that software that allows consumers to circumvent protection measures that prevent consumers from copying DVDs is in breach of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The defendant, 321 Studios, had argued that its technology was not in breach because it allowed consumers to make fair use of the material protected by the circumvention protection measures – for example, to make back-ups in case of the original work being damages and for journalistic use. According to Judge Susan Illston though, the software, which contains “keys” to unlock the protection on the DVDs, was illegal. Moreover, the DMCA was found to be compatible with free speech and not to interfere with the free use rights of consumers. 321 has said it will appeal.
While the IPKat doesn’t advocate copyright infringement, he is most definitely in favour of the fair use provisions of copyright works, which strike the balance between the interests of copyright owners and the interest of other actors in having access to copyright works. In so far as this balance is not struck in the DMCA by the absence of fair use exceptions, he is not a happy cat.
DMCA here YMCA here
While the IPKat doesn’t advocate copyright infringement, he is most definitely in favour of the fair use provisions of copyright works, which strike the balance between the interests of copyright owners and the interest of other actors in having access to copyright works. In so far as this balance is not struck in the DMCA by the absence of fair use exceptions, he is not a happy cat.
DMCA here YMCA here
NO FAIR USE FOR ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION SAYS US COURT
![NO FAIR USE FOR ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION SAYS US COURT]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html