You may have heard that 2600.com lost their lawsuit over DeCSS recently. That's not all, folks. I have access to some of the court papers and briefs, and this affects the emuscene as well. Judge Kaplan has shot Chuck Cochem's "personal use" defense all to hell under the terms of the DMCA. Let me stress that last line - UNDER THE TERMS OF THE DMCA. In the court papers I have in my possession, Kaplan notes that the DMCA addresses infringement concerns that are not "traditional copyright issues." As such, if an infringed party choses to prosecute an infringer under the DMCA and not by regular copyright legislation (17 USC 106, 106A, 501, et. al., you know the drill by now), then the infringer HAS NO RIGHT to employ the fair use defense. Gulp! That left 2600.com with nothing to shield them but the First Amendment, and you saw how that defense was blown away.

That's not all, guys. Since personal use was defined under the concept of fair use in the Betamax case, then ....

"You mean ....?"

Uh, huh. If a vendor prosecutes you under the DMCA and not regular copyright law, then "personal use" is NOT an acceptable legal defense. Period. I'm not saying that, Judge Kaplan (speaking for the U.S. Federal Courts) is saying that. The other shoe has now dropped. BANG! I warned you this was coming, and now here it is. Gawd, here it is. I never imagined they would take this so far so fast in so short a time.

You know the vendors are going to JUST LOVE this development. I shudder to think what may be coming down the line.

I wish I could help you guys, but like I've said, I've moved on to other things and I frankly don't see a way out of this one. The scene's only hope for now is that potential infringers are charged under regular copyright law and not the DMCA. About all I can do is echo what Chuck said in his original editorial - the DMCA is indeed an unjust law.

Gotta run - other duties call. Good luck guys, and God bless.