Re: Bug#156287: Advice on Drip (ITP #156287)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- Cc: Steve Langasek <email@example.com>, Robert Millan <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#156287: Advice on Drip (ITP #156287)
- From: Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:05:02 -0400
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mail-followup-to: email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG), Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Robert Millan <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (email@example.com's message of "30 Jul 2003 09:09:10 -0700")
- References: <20030728233837.GA17172@aragorn> <20030729081953.GA10221@zoy.org> <20030729204707.GA23924@aragorn> <20030729222121.GE10221@zoy.org> <20030730010236.GB24365@aragorn> <20030729231452.GH3845@tennyson.netexpress.net> <20030730014948.GA24634@aragorn> <20030730010121.GA9552@quetzlcoatl.dodds.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03