Here are some links:
The US Code---
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html

Berkman Center at Havard Law School---

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/futureofip/

EFF - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (supports legal defense)--

http://www.eff.org/

321 Studios involved in distribution rights, which on 3-8-2004 got a stay in the above court order to be lifted and case to be heard 3-15-2004---

http://www.protectfairuse.org/

2600 loses a DeCSS case and has to remove links to software sites---

http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/302

And a WIN under free-speech rights against the Ban on DeCSS---

http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_c...227_eff_pr.php

--------------------------------------------------------

Copying anything is legal when the copyright holder sells a license to do so.

Copying copyright material has exceptions for for several areas, like librarys, law enforcement, research, and individual fair use rights.

The DeCSS is software to decrypt and copy for open source Linux operating system. The MPAA did not license any software for Linux, and in effect gave up that small market by not providing a license for that segment of users. The Linux user public did not have any means to make a fair use copy. DeCSS code was written and posted free to the public for many months. Andrew Bunner therefore was not violating a trade secret, because it was no longer a secret before he started distribution of DeCSS software. And thus, the Ban against Andrew Bunner was overturned as a violation of his free-speech rights.

Copyright protects the right of the Public to have information, while establishing a means for the original author to protect their intellectual property in distribution to the public. If the author did all the distribution himself (before computers) then he would not make much money. So, the law allows him to sell or transfer his copyrights to a distribution business (MPAA) which creates and meets the demands of mass markets timely, i.e. more sales, more money. In the DeCSS case, the distribution (actually the DVD makers) business lost its copyright protection to the greater good of the Public, because they did not make a means of distribution to a small sector of the Public and allowed someone else to fill that demand. It wasn't worth it to license copy software for the small market or to enforce prevention; later, when the small market started growing into the enterprise business getting much larger, it was too late to claim trade secret protection --- free use rights had already made the trade secret public knowledge. Another reason why an individual would transfer their copyright to a large distribution business, which is supposed to have the resources to enforce protection timely in all markets.

Today, a single person could give away intellectual property to mass markets via computers, but would have to be anonymous or else he would be subject to later disputes about whether or not he transferred copyright protection.

Copyleft was invented to protect the open and free distribution and allow the retention of claims to being original author, and stopping someone later from charging the public and making money as if they had acquired the copyright. And a Copyleft can include variations such as when someone adds their work to yours and wants to sell the combination. Or put it into a format usable easily by the public and charge a fee for making it easily usable, like the open source distribution companies as Red Hat, Mandrake, or those funny little penguin names.