...the problem with intellectual property laws at this point is that the companies that own content are attempting to get the rules changed (or established, depending on how closely you believe high-tech digitally distributable intellectual property laws can/should mirror old-school hard copy intellectual property laws) such that you buy per use, not per piece of intellectual property. Entertainment companies are trying to influence the laws so that, in the future, you will not be able to buy a DVD once then watch it as many times as you want. They would much prefer that you have to pay each and every time you watch or listen.
The best example of this was the hubbub about DeCSS. I can legally obtain DVDs containing intellectual property (for instance, the Far East DVD release of Sleeping Beauty), but about the only way I can watch that legally obtained DVD is to "break" the "copy protection." If I legally bought the DVD, how can someone say I'm "stealing" if I manage to actually watch it (with lots of lawyers, that's how)?
The movie industry went ape-**** over this, saying that DeCSS's _only_ use was for stealing, which is patently untrue. This is the same gambit that was successful at crippling Napster: the record companies said "the only thing this can be used for is theft" long enough and loudly enough that the courts believed it, even though it's a flat-out lie.
I'm opening myself to accusations of "Chicken Little-itis" here, but there's no reason to believe that the entertainment companies can't or won't use the same type of argument to try to criminalize writable CDs or DVDs, TiVo boxes, even VCRs (why do you think DAT tapes never caught on in the US mass market? Because entertainment companies didn't want them to catch on, and lobbied to make them more difficult and expensive to buy and operate).
Jeff
PS: tossing around all these legal system statements should ensure Chad has enough targets for a big ol' post
