Background: All DVDs have use a relatively insecure (can be cracked in 18 seconds) encryption called Content Scrambling System (CSS). Its creators claim that this system prevents copying. In reality, encryption doesn't stop large-scale pirates who already make bit-for-bit copies (including encryption and all). Since home DVD players expect to decrypt the disc; an unencrypted disc would be useless. Encryption does stop smaller scale pirates, but in the same breath, takes away fundamental court-sanctioned rights of consumers. You can't make a VCR copy of a movie so that the kids can watch it in the back of the minivan; you can't play your legally bought French film in your American DVD player.
Their system works by forcing hardware manufacturers to accept a special licensing agreement in order to obtain the secret (and necessary) decryption algorithm. This licensing agreement forces manufacturers to include content-control "features" in their products. For example, video outputs must contain macrovision protection that makes them unrecordable on VCRs. Manufacturers must respect so-called region codes that prevent imported DVDs from working. And when the movie studios want you to see a commercial before the movie, the manufacturer can't allow you to fast forward through it. As DVD recorders come into existence, you are prevented from making DVDs that will play on ordinary players (such as a DVD of your wedding), and you cannot make a mix of your favorite music videos.
The scary part is that the same laws that are being applied to DVDs will be used when Digital TV becomes the standard and the FCC's planned outlawing of the broadcast of analog signals becomes effective. Then you will have the court-approved right to record and timeshift TV programs, but there will be no manufacturers that can provide you will a device to do this. I don't mean to be an alarmist, but this is a major consumer rights disaster in the making.
Industry leader John Gilmore has written an excellent essay on the subject.
This topic is really quick-moving, so I'll just provide some links so that you can learn the latest:
Activism group interested in playing DVDs on multiple platforms: 
The cryptome's DVD-CSS
section.
The electronic frontier foundation (EFF)
is knee-deep in the case and has provided over $1,000,000 in pro-bono defense
council.
2600 has been injuncted (is that
the term?!) for providing source code or linking to websites that do. They
lost their court case, but it's on appeal.
Security through obscurity is an unworkable principle.
Activism!: www.etoy.com
This story is pretty much over, and the right people won. It's a story of a corporation that used a name confusingly similar to a group of artists, and then tried to bully them into giving up their name. This was, unfortuantly, only a warning sign that the management of this corporation was inept -- the proceeded to drive their company into bankruptcy. The irony is that the artists will probably have a chance to buy the name of the corporation, tainted as it is. Below is my coverage while in the midst of the lawsuits:
www.etoy.com is getting the shaft from www.etoys.com. The "etoy" site belongs to a mischievous european artist cooperative, and was on the web about a year and a half before "etoys" was founded. You can guess who is annoyed that some of its customers can't spell and has lots of money for lawyers. Let's check the facts... www.etoy.com came first. www.etoys.com picked their name despite knowing about www.etoy.com. "etoys" is a trademark of www.etoys.com, but since www.etoy.com is not offering the same services or appearing to be etoys, there is no trademark infringement. Etoys offered etoy $500,000, but since that offer was refused, the money will go to their lawyers.
A judge in california ordered the www.etoy.com site shut down, for what seems to be, no legal standing. He claims that the www.etoy.com site has damaged the www.etoys.com brand name. (I think that a big domain-name-hijacking capitalist corporation has damaged the www.etoy.com brand name) He also prohibited www.etoy.com from offering or selling unregistered shares (their attempt to mock internet IPOs) in its company to americans, but this prohibition should not affect their website. What does he expect them to do -- Censor themselves because a giant moved into the web address next door?
Learn the truth at www.2600.com (hear an interview with cofounder Zai at about 36 minutes, 30 seconds into the december 7th episode of off the hook.). See their related page at www.hijack.org, or see the www.etoy.com page at 146.228.204.72 (they understandably refuse to use another domain name and are instead using the dotted quad to obey the injunction). You can email the CEO of etoys (or his secretary, at least), and of course, you can refuse to buy or invest in a corporation that not only was so dumb that it picked an easily misspellable domain name, but is also cruel and cocky enough to try to manipulate the legal system to force its target into bankruptcy.
Let's hope that a big-spending company doesn't buy the rights to www.whitehouses.gov, and then sue the Executive branch when people mistype it and are offended.
p.s. This smells of what the scientologists did-- they sued a very good organization, the cult awareness network, into oblivion. Then, at the bankruptcy sale, they bought their assets. So now if you call their 1-800 number and ask about your friend who seems to be taken in by the cult-like behavior of a particular group, the scientologists will tell you that this really is a good thing and that perhaps you should join, too. But I digress.
Update 1/17/2000- Etoys has called off the lawsuit, but etoy isn't satisfied yet. Etoy would (understandably) like to see some formal documentation that says (to the effect) that they have the legal right to etoy.com and that etoys.com will no longer harass them. This is coming from memory, but I think they also wanted compensation for their legal expenses. Etoy is also working on getting a trademark status for their name. Personally, since there is a reasonable chance that the courts may find that etoys is violating etoy's trademark, I would like to see etoys.com report to their shareholders what it would cost to rebrand their site.
Next-to Final Update - Etoy has reached a settlement they find agreeable. I forget the exact details, sorry...
Final Update - Etoys.com has filed for bankruptcy.