[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#156287: Advice on Drip (ITP #156287)

tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> 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 <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Reply to: