RE: Question About Music Copyright---Answer may be on the way, bu t don't hold your breath

[Max.Hyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

   Gentlefolk:

   First, note that some of the URLs mentioned could easily be
line-wrapped by e-mail software.  If your browser complains, check
that you've got the entire link.

   As reported in

	
http://dailycamera.com/bdc/national_intl_business/article/0,1713,BDC_2464_16
07918,00.html

the company 321 Studios (http://www.321studios.com/) has initiated a
lawsuit against the a number of Hollywood studios, trying to establish
whether copying for private use is indeed a protected right.

   There's going to be a ton of legal maneuvering before we get
anywhere near a conclusion, though.  The studios have already filed
for dismissal on the grounds there's no argument between them and 321
Studios, and it's reported that the U.S. Department of Justice may
want to step in due to the case's constitutional implications.

   You can read the filing itself at:

	
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:CiOWJ-cB8rIC:www.321studios.com/complai
nt.pdf+%22321+studios%22+dvd+%22case+no%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

This is Google's cached HTML version of the PDF alleged to be on 321's
site (at http://www.321studios.com/complaint.pdf).  Going there, a
message says it can't be found---probably removed so they can use
their bandwidth for something else, like transacting business.

   More coverage:

Associated Press:

	
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/business/4489286.htm

PC World:  Coverage of the original software announcement, including
the company's thoughts on their position.

	http://pcworld.shopping.yahoo.com/yahoo/article/0,aid,105626,00.asp

Slashdot (mostly uninformed commentary, but experts *do* weigh in
sometimes) 

	http://slashdot.org/yro/02/04/23/1944249.shtml?tid=123

And here's the product itself:

	http://www.dvdxcopy.com/



-- 

                         Best wishes,

                                  Max Hyre