It was thus said that the Great Wayne M. Smith once stated:
>
> > The Digital Millenium Copyright Act was no less ridiculous, and is now
> > Federal law. In the many times that law has been invoked, not one case
> > has involved the mass distribution pirates its proponents claimed to
> > target.
>
> Wrong. 4500+ copies is "mass distribution."
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/03/29/video-bootleg.htm
>
> In any event, the DMCA was intended to address not only those who distribute copies, but those who provide "circumvention devices"
> that enable others to engage in mass distribution. Doesn't it make as much sense to go after those involved in "mass distribution"
> of the circumvention device, such as DeCSS?
While DeCSS is a circumvention device, a pirate does *not* need DeCSS to
copy a DVD. DeCSS was created to allow someone the ability to *view* DVDs
the author *already owned.* Now, the author wanted to view these on a
device not blessed with the proper licensing and there in is the crux of the
matter. When I buy a DVD, what, exactly, am I getting?
-spc (I mean, besides shafted by Hollywood?)
Received on Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:45:38 BST