When it comes to making personal copies, U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel left that totally gray—that is, she chose not to rock the boat on whether or not making personal copies actually falls under the "fair use" doctrine of the DMCA. Lots of "mays" and "whiles" in there:

"So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies."

So DVD ripping is kind of like laws about pot in some places: It's sorta legal to possess in certain circumstances, but not kosher to sell it. Thanks for clearing that up, judge.

What that means for Real, and their long-term plans—a box that archives DVDs—is even murkier. [Wired, NYT]

It's a sloppy gray area we've looked at before: When you buy digital content, do you really own it? With actual CDs or books, the first sale doctrine lets you hawk it later on eBay or gave it away if you want.

But was Obama in the clear to give away those showtunes, even if he bought them legally on iTunes? The EFF notes that in iTunes' 9,000-word terms of use, they coincidentally happen to sidestep the question. And if first sale applies, what about...? Oh forget it. The EFF ponders all the possibilities much better than I do. The point is simply that ownership, which used to be simple question, is now much more complicated than it needs to be, and ultimately, it sucks for regular people. [EFF via BoingBoing]

The arguments centered around fair use: Real claimed that making a bit-for-bit copy of the film, which is what their software did, falls under that umbrella. The studios claim that fair use does not include decoding a movie from any media besides the original DVD — something what RealDVD enables. Far from the legal victory or even protracted, public battle that Real was hoping for, the decision will likely hold into the foreseeable future. [Wired Threat Level]

Besides, with so many entertainment entities offering their own content online without YouTube's craptastic flash compression, I know where I'm going to not watch Desperate Housewives. What do you think readers? Is there a better solution to this mess that we're all too blind to see? [wcbstv]

"The problem is that, unlike previous versions of the legislation, Boucher's new bill offers no legal protections for the developers of software like Handbrake. As a result, the tools required to exercise fair use are difficult to find, not as user-friendly as they could be, and not supported by major software companies like Apple and Microsoft. Perhaps worst of all, the law makes it impossible for legitimate software firms (in the United States, at least) to develop new software to make innovative uses of content obtained from DVDs, iTunes, or other DRM-encumbered formats."

FAIR USE Act analysis: DMCA reform left on the cutting room floor [Ars Technica]

Reps. Rich Boucher (D-Va.) and John Dolittle (R-Calif.) introduced their "Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship" (or FAIR USE) Act today, one that aims to make crippled DRM illegal. Check it:

"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act dramatically tilted the copyright balance toward complete copyright protection at the expense of the public's right to fair use. Without a change in the law, individuals will be less willing to purchase digital media if their use of the media within the home is severely circumscribed and the manufacturers of equipment and software that enables circumvention for legitimate purposes will be reluctant to introduce the products into the market."

Digital 'Fair Use' Bill Introduced In Congress [Washington Post]

If the actual AACS copy protection hasn't truly been cracked, then Hollywood & Co. don't have too much to worry about just yet. But with an entire community now working toward truly cracking the copy protection scheme, how long will this honeymoon last? – Nicholas Deleon

Hi-def DVD security is bypassed [BBC News]

independent software developers who want to develop software for cellphones without having to go through the corporate red tape. Also in the ruling is the permission for educators to use snippets of movies for educational purposes and for blind people to use special software to read copy-protected e-books.

Several things come to mind with this ruling. Firstly, I'd like to thank the government for giving us small pieces of fair use once again. (Of course, the implicit indication is that now all other forms of fair use are illegal and can only be made legal by the granting of more exceptions. Oh DMCA, how we love thee.) It's also nice to see that blind people need to get special permission to use something that they've purchased. Secondly, how many people are going to claim to be educators know when they rip and snip DVDs? Laws are fun to sidestep. – Nicholas Deleon

U.S. Copyright Office issues new rights [AP/Yahoo! News]

As a result, Cablevision said yesterday that it was halting the introduction of its network DVR, which was supposed to launch in the near future. It seems that the increasingly irrelevant "fair use" clause that Cablevision tried to invoke didn't help them out at all. The mighty hammer of Hollywood has stuck yet again. Honestly, though, are you even surprised? – Nicholas Deleon

Cablevision to Halt Video Recorder Test [AP/New York Times]