Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 09:09:10AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > 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. > > In what regard?
I believe that the circumvention in question, under the DMCA, is specifically only circumvention which is a copy protection mechanism. The CSS is not a copy protection mechanism, in any sense of the term. It is rather a mechanism designed to enforce region coding. It is not correct that CSS was developed by hardware player manufacturers in order to maintain their profits. All the players can always play an unencrypted DVD. It is the studios that choose to encrypt, and they do so to enforce region coding, and staged geographic releases and differential pricing. The distinction was between playing and copying of movies by means of decrypting CSS. You assert that viewing is a form of "access" (which indeed it is), but this misses the point that the DMCA covers only a copy-protection scheme, not an "access protection scheme". I do agree with your broader point that if we can ship libdvdcss, we can ship applications that use it. I also agree that, if it's feasible, a lawyer's advice would be useful here. Thomas
