[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is an arbitrary distinction that has no clear basis in the >> law. You are also circumventing CSS by playing the DVD in question >> (viewing is also a form of "access"). Remember that CSS is a >> standard developed by a consortium of DVD *player manufacturers*, >> to maintain their hardware profits. > > I believe this is not correct. I'm not absolutely clear what distinction Steve's referring to, but I assumed it was the distinction between decoding+copying and decoding+playing. My understanding is that it's the decoding (i.e., the circumvention) that's questionable, whether it's copied or played. The whole preventing copying bit is just MPIAA spin; what css actually does is prevent playing (i.e., interpretation of the data). Am I misunderstanding? Adding decss to drip may intuitively *seem* worse than adding decss to a player, but is there legal or factual basis for that? A circumvention device is a circumvention device; that's the whole point with this law. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
