Yes. 321 Studios is breaking the law, and the law itself is fair. The judge decided that the whole point of 321's software was to break the CSS digital lock, which is exactly what the law forbids. It doesn't matter if some customers might have a good reason, like making a personal backup. Selling the lock-picking tool is the illegal act. The judge also explained that this law doesn't violate free speech. It regulates what the software *does* (its function), not what it *says* (its code), so it's a fair rule to prevent piracy.

Yes, 321 Studios' DVD copying program breaks the law. The program is mainly designed to unlock the CSS digital lock, which controls access to the copyrighted movies and protects the rights of the movie studios. The program doesn't really have any other major purpose besides unlocking CSS, and 321 Studios markets it for that purpose.

The DMCA law doesn't unfairly limit people's rights to use copyrighted material in ways that are considered 'fair use'. Even though it might be harder, people can still make fair uses. The law is aimed at tools that break digital locks, not at what people do with the material after the locks are broken.

The law doesn't violate 321 Studios' free speech rights by limiting how they advertise the program, because the government has an important reason to stop tools that break digital locks. The law also doesn't go beyond what Congress is allowed to do under the Constitution.

Yes. Trafficking in software designed to circumvent CSS on DVDs violates the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, and those provisions are constitutional. The software violates both § 1201(a)(2) for circumventing access controls and § 1201(b)(1) for circumventing copy protections, because CSS serves both functions. The argument that a user has the 'authority of the copyright owner' simply by purchasing a DVD is incorrect; the authority is to view the work, not to decrypt it. Downstream fair use by a customer is not a defense for the manufacturer trafficking in the circumvention device, as the DMCA targets the trafficking of the tool itself, not the end use. The software is both 'primarily designed' to circumvent CSS and is 'marketed' for that purpose, satisfying the statutory requirements for a violation. The DMCA is constitutional because it is a content-neutral regulation of the functional aspects of computer code, subject only to intermediate scrutiny. The government's substantial interest in protecting copyrights from digital piracy outweighs the incidental burden on speech, and the statute does not unconstitutionally eliminate fair use, as fair use does not guarantee the right to copy in the most convenient or original format.

Yes, 321 Studios' DVD copying software violates the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. The software is primarily designed and produced to circumvent CSS, a technological measure that effectively controls access to copyrighted DVDs and protects the rights of copyright owners. The software has only limited commercially significant purpose other than circumvention and is marketed for use in circumventing CSS. 

The DMCA does not impermissibly restrict fair use rights of users. Although fair use is still possible, it is not guaranteed in a user's preferred format. The DMCA targets trafficking in circumvention tools, not the use of materials after circumvention. 

The DMCA's restrictions on 321 Studios' speech in marketing the software do not violate the First Amendment because intermediate scrutiny applies and the government has a substantial interest in preventing trafficking of circumvention devices. The DMCA also does not exceed the scope of Congressional powers under the Commerce Clause or Intellectual Property Clause.

321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot