Robert H. Moore, a software developer on the outskirts of St. Louis,
built a multimillion-dollar business out of helping people copy DVDs.

Now he's trying to prove that his products are legal.

Moore's wares enable the copying of discs even if they are scrambled to
prevent duplication, as are most movies sold on DVD. This sort of
product, officials at the Motion Picture Assn. of America say, blatantly
violates a 1998 federal law against picking the electronic locks on
copyrighted works.

Moore disagrees, saying the public has the right to make backup copies
of the DVDs it buys. His company, 321 Studios of Chesterfield, Mo., has
asked a federal judge to rule that its DVD Copy Plus product does not
violate copyright law. As an alternative, the company asked the judge to
declare unconstitutional the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act.

The case is one of several high-stakes battles in courts and in
Washington that pit consumer rights against copyrights.

These fights center on new technologies such as online file-sharing
networks, digital television broadcasts and personal video recorders
that enable people to make  and in some cases, distribute 
high-quality digital copies of music, movies and other creative works.

Film studios, record companies and publishers say digital piracy poses
an unprecedented threat to their businesses. Electronics manufacturers,
technology companies and civil libertarians argue that the protections
demanded by copyright owners would roll back consumer rights and stifle
innovation.

In fact, these groups say, Congress already has given the copyright
owners too much control. They argue that the technical provisions of the
law squash the historical so-called fair-use rights people have to make
personal copies of the media they buy.

"If you circumvent [electronic locks] to get access to content that you
may have a perfect, fair-use right to get, you are still subject to
criminal penalties," said Gary S. Klein, vice president for government
and legal affairs at the Consumer Electronics Assn.

Moore says he knew nothing about these issues when he started selling
DVD Copy Plus last year. At that time, he didn't even think he was
building a business.

"The whole thing's a fluke," said Moore, who has spent the last two
decades advising companies on database management and other software
issues. Hoping to interest his son in his line of work, Moore said, he
set up his laptop on his kitchen table and built a Web site that could
sell products electronically.

He didn't have a product, so his son suggested that he write an
instruction manual for copying DVDs  something Moore had been doing as
a hobby. He slapped together the manual with software freely available
on the Internet, then started selling the package from the new Web site
for just under $20.

Since then, he has sold 100,000 copies of DVD Copy Plus, offering
increasingly polished and expensive versions over time. He also has
moved the business from his home in House Springs, Mo., to offices in
Chesterfield and hired about two dozen employees.

MPAA spokeswoman Marta Grutka said there's a clear line between a legal
and an illegal product. If it circumvents the scrambling technology on a
DVD, "then the developer of the software or device is exposing
themselves to criminal prosecution" under the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act.

To Moore and his attorneys, that's the wrong question. They argue that
consumers use DVD Copy Plus to make backup copies of the movies they
buy, protecting their investment in the delicate plastic discs. This
kind of personal copying is exactly the kind of fair use that other
provisions of federal copyright law allows, they say.

The program is slow  it takes six to 20 hours to copy a DVD  and it
doesn't make exact duplicates. Instead, it squeezes videos into a
lower-quality format that can fit on a CD, enabling buyers to use a CD
recorder instead of a more expensive DVD burner.

Those limitations crimp the value of DVD Copy Plus to potential pirates.
But early next month, 321 Studios is releasing a new product for
consumers with DVD recorders, dubbed DVDXCopy, that is designed to make
perfect copies of DVDs in 60 to 90 minutes.

Hoping to allay Hollywood's concerns, the new version injects electronic
barriers into the copies it makes to prevent them from being duplicated
further. It also inserts digital watermarks and identifying information
that Moore said can trace the source of any file that's transmitted over
the Internet, a feature that the studios are trying to include in the
next generation of DVD recorders, players and discs.

Moore said these protections could conceivably be circumvented too, but
they should deter piracy. "It's our way to try to bridge the gap between
pirates and fair use," he said.

In addition to enabling people to make backup copies, Moore said, the
new program can restore scratched and unplayable DVDs by taking
advantage of the ability of computer DVD drives to correct for errors.

Neither of 321 Studios' products, however, can tell the difference
between a DVD that's owned and one that's rented, borrowed from a friend
or checked out of the library. As a result, people can just as easily
copy DVDs they don't own as ones they do.

In March, Ken Jacobson, a senior anti-piracy official with the MPAA,
told a reporter that DVD copying programs violated federal law, and that
the MPAA had asked the FBI to investigate. Those comments prompted 321
Studios to file suit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, asking the
court to protect the company.

The nine studios named in the company's complaint  including Sony
Pictures Entertainment Inc., Time Warner Entertainment Co., Universal
City Studios Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. and Disney
Enterprises Inc.  argued in court papers that the suit was premature
because they haven't threatened to sue 321 Studios.

They also argue that the company is trying to avoid being sued in New
York, where an appeals panel has upheld the constitutionality of the
anti-circumvention provisions of the 1998 Copyright Act.

Unfortunately for 321 Studios, a federal judge in the Bay Area ruled
shortly after Moore filed his lawsuit that anti-circumvention provisions
are constitutional. However, the ruling, out of U.S. District Court in
San Jose, isn't binding.

"As long as you are engaged in production of tech that's primarily
designed for circumvention, you're in the cross hairs," said Harvard
University law professor William W. "Terry" Fisher III. The
constitutional challenge to the 1998 law "is unlikely to go anywhere
until it's presented in a more traditional free-speech context," such as
circumvention for academic research, he said.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act may preserve the public's right to
copy DVDs, said Pamela Samuelson, a copyright law expert at UC Berkeley.
But there's no such protection, she said, for the companies that make
circumvention products.

Daralyn J. Durie, an attorney for 321 Studios, countered that her
client's products aren't primarily designed to circumvent electronic
locks. They're designed to copy DVDs, some of which have no locks.

And as much as Moore's company has benefited from the booming popularity
of DVDs, it's also feeling the pain of digital piracy: Copies of DVD
Copy Plus are freely available on Internet file-sharing networks, and
pirates frequently trade serial numbers to unlock unauthorized copies.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dvdcopy28oct28,0,3828638.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dtodays%2Dtimes

Reply via email to