USA Gov. Brief in MPAA vs. 2600 case Online

The U.S. Government plans to enter the MPAA vs. 2600 case on the side of the movie studios, arguing in court that the District Court's injunction against distribution of or linking to DeCSS was correct and that the Court of Appeals should not overturn it. The legal brief the government filed is available, as are some news stories. In general, the government supports all of Judge Kaplan's "best" positions in his decision: linking is not speech, linking is equivalent to distributing banned content yourself, etc.

Comments

Linking isn't speech

[volsung]

I really can't see the justification for linking as speech. However, the worse issue is that when you link to a site, you have no control over the content of the site you linked to. If you become legally responsible for someone else's content when you link, you have big problems. The slippery slope gets ugly when you have to sort out whether the "intent" was to aid in the distribution of "illegal information" (a phrase that makes me shudder), whether search engines are responsible, and whether you can legally tell a search engine to avoid a known "bad" site.

Re:Linking isn't speech

[vidarh]

I'll show you justification....

http://slashdot.org/

The above isn't a link. It is just a URL. It's trivial to automatically make a link of it, though. Something many systems and applications (such as gnome-terminal) do automatically.

Should that be considered linking, or speech?

What about "You can find it on Slashdot". Is that linking, or speech? It would be trivial with gnome-terminal for instance to define a regex that matches any such reference, and creates links to slashdot.org/.net/.com.

The effect is the same. And with the help of applications, it will in many cases be indistinguishable for the end user.

The critical part is that if you are legally obligated not to link to sites containing illegal material, many will not dare link at all, since a site may change at any point, and it may be impossible for you to prove later that the illegal material weren't there when you linked.

Also, for you Americans, your courts has time and time again defended news sources rights to publish material that was either aquired by illegal means (the Pentagon papers spring to mind), or to paraphrase libelous material or other material where the original publication was deemed illegal, because censoring it would prevent the free dissemination also about criticism about the work.

What if free sale of Mein Kampf were forbidden, as it is in Germany (you can get hold of it, but you are required to have a "legitimate" interest in it, for instance for research purposes), and you were not allowed to quote even to illustrate your arguments against nazism? It would strike not only the publishers of the book and those supporting it, but also those opposing the banned work.

In this case the work in question has been deemed illegal by the lower court. And even those opposing it and it's use will risc breaking the law if they link to it even for the purpose of illustrating what they are talking about.

Linking in this respect is akin to quoting, or to giving an ISBN number, or tell that "you can go to that store, and they will have it", all of which is legal.

The really interesting part of this, is that judge Kaplans justification for banning the linking is so thin that there's a good chance a printed newspaper could publish all the links it wanted to decss without the risc of any repercussions, while a website can not (at least not in the form of an actual link).

But the real issue here is that the court is trying to censor what should be protected speech - the decss program itself.

Why do players need to be authorized?

[grahamm]

One aspect of this which I do not remember seeing justified is why a DVD player should need authorization from the MPAA. Or to put it another way, what gives the MPAA (and others) the right to dictate how their content should be enjoyed?

When you purchase copyright a copyright work, be it a book, picture, DVD, CD, VHS or cassette tape, you are purchasing the right (or a licence) to enjoy the copyright work. I do not disagree with the copyright owners wishing to control the copying of the work, broadcasting and public showing, but I fail to see why they should also have (or claim) the right to dictate the environment in which the work may be enjoyed in private. If you purchase a book or painting, the copyright owner does not tell you where you are allowed to read the book or hang the painting. Once we purchase the DVD, it should be no business of the copyright owner what equipment we use to view the content. The US DCMA states that none of its provisions remove the "fair use" use rights given by other copyright laws but recent events make this claim rather suspect.

Re:Ostensibly, the artists.

[jms]

When you buy a CD, or book, or DVD, you are buying a piece of plastic. You are not licensing a thing. The entire "licensing" phenomenon is an anomoly that arises because the computer industry was able to convince the courts that when you run a program, you are making a "copy" into the computer's memory, and therefore need a license to make that copy (and use the software.) This has absolutely no application to anything except software, and there's a school of thought that says that Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 eliminates this "requirement", in essence allowing you to freely use any software for which you own a legally made copy without any license whatsoever:

Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ...


Also, more to the point of this particular message, as an example of how artists do NOT have the right to control how their works are distributed and presented after first sale, for instance, it is completely legal for you to buy an art book, cut out each page, frame it, and sell them individually. Once you purchase a copy, you then have the right, not under some license, but under copyright law, to resell and/or dispose of your copy as you see fit.

Those who don't know your rights, might as well not have them.

Both parties equally bought and paid for

[FreeUser]

It is doubtful that the Bush folks would have put something like this just since the swearing in, or even since the election, since they were so distracted with other business.

This simply isn't true. Beurocracies chug along just fine during political transitions and have for the last century (at least). You are probably right in that the foundation was almost certainly laid under the Clinton administration, but you are wrong to assign innocence to the Bush administration.

Hollywood has its claws into both parties. Actors and Artists are typically in the Democratic camp, while Recording and Movie Executives are typically in the Republican camp. I say typically; there are obvious exceptions, such as Actor turned President Ronald Reagan. In any event Hollywood and the Copyright Cartels hold a great deal of influence over both parties.

Remember, it was a Republican congress who passed the DMCA into law, and a Democratic president who signed it.

Re:Supreme Court should hear this case.

[IntlHarvester]

That is why this case should keep going straight to the Supreme Court, where they will reaffirm the fair use doctrines

You know, there's this Slashdot assumption that 69th Amendment to the Constitution grants "Fair Use" rights that can't be overruled by some little ol law.

Well, it isn't true: Fair Use is a concept defined by copyright law. And if the copyright law (the DMCA) says that "bypassing an access control device is illegal and not Fair Use", then that's the way it is. So the real solution is 1) Mass Civil Disobedience, which will lead to 2) The repeal of the DMCA or (more likely) the passage of the Digital Millennium Consumer Fair Use Act.
--

Re:Supreme Court should hear this case.

[NMerriam]

Fair Use is a concept defined by copyright law

Fair Use is a legally inherent part of the Constitutionally authorized Copyright laws (at least that's what the Supreme Court said when they allowed "Fair Use" to be a defense).

So no, Congress cannot legislate Fair Use away (short of a Constitutional amendement). This is one of the arguments the EFF has been using -- that Congress simply CANNOT restrict the fair use of material even if they 100% wanted to with the DMCA (and of course, they DIDN'T intend to, which is one of the other major arguments).


---------------------------------------------

Development of Encryption Technology

[maroberts]

Distribution of DeCSS certainly advanced my state of knowledge of encryption technology; so much so that I was able to understand from it how the encryption method worked and submit suggested improvements to the algorithm.

So how do I submit a paper contradicting the opinion in the Governement brief?

Beware your faith in the Supreme Court

[sterno]

It is terribly risky to put your faith in the Supreme Court. This court has had a tendancy to be very activist, and could do something really dangerous with this case. I guarantee that this will go before the Supreme court because neither side can afford to lose, but that doesn't mean 2600 will win it.

I think that 2600 has very valid legal ground and the release of open source players for Linux validates the very useful application of this technology. But the Supreme Court could decide that this laws was within the jurisdicition of congress and that Kaplan's interpretation is accurate. Then where would we be?

We need to find a louder voice in the place where the bad laws get made. We need to have greater control over our destiny than hoping that we get lucky with the Supreme Court. It's too late now for 2600 to take a different approach, but if this goes badly, we need to be ready with a backup plan (besides moving to countries with well written laws).

---

Re:Has anyone published a DeCSS book yet?

[Midnight Thunder]

Sounds good - maybe a book on encryption techniques both successful and unsuccessful and why the bad one fail, and maybe even a chapter on the implications to the Joe Public of encryption. Of course as suggested CSS and DeCCS should be one of the case studies on the book. The advantage of a book, is that even if it can't be published in the US, at least it could be published in Europe, or anywhere else that feels that people have rights - heck it would be ironic if we saw this being published in China.

Re:Doesn't work that way

[kramer]

Fair use doesn't allow it, but the right of First sale does. Essentially, it states that once a copyright owner *SELLS* (not licences) a work, anything the consumer does with that work short of copying it is their own business. The owner cannot mantain restrictions on the work. This principle dates back to the early 1900's.

Further, my understanding is that the reason that DeCSS was orginally written for windows was because the code the borrowed from the Xing player
was easier to port to windows than linux. It should be noted that within a week there was a linux utility based on DeCSS available.

Another reason to get your Copyleft DeCSS shirt

[Platinum Dragon]

With each DeCSS shirt, Copyleft also provides a printout copy of the entire css-auth/DeCSS code. If hardcopy is the limiting factor between "speech" and "not speech", then I'd just love to see the MPAA try to get a flyer with the code banned.

The css-auth song was removed from MP3.com as "objectionable" material. I suspect there's a lot of material on MP3.com that depicts violent or misogynistic acts, or contains various forms of hate speech. I bet that material never gets touched.

In fact, the code is now public record; the MPAA's lawyers entered the code into evidence, and forgot to have that exhibit locked away from the public!

If we're playing the "intent" game, then posting the code with the intent of allowing others to download it and rip DVDs can be blocked. Posting the code with the intent to protest the MPAAs actions can easily be considered speech; rather like abortion protestors busting out the pictures of aborted fetuses at clinic rallies (then decrying violent images on TV, but that's another issue, and if you think I'm getting into that one right now, you're nuts).

What if I post the code on an HTML page, not in a tar.gz or .zip archive? The code is public record, as well as a form of protest; can it still be blocked? Especially if the page also explains why the code is being posted?

Once again: MPAA lawyers, you don't like it, come get me . I have a lot of time, and the will to defend my right to protest, and to view my legally-purchased movies on a platform of my choice.

Not unusual, but it is disappointing

[werdna]

The government isn't hopping so much on the side of big business, as it is defending the constitutionality of a legislative action. In a meaningful sense, a constitutional attack on a statute *IS* an attack on a legislative act, and thus the government tends to file, sometimes even lukewarm, briefs in support of statutes -- even when the policy of the statute is unconcionable.

In otherwords, a government brief in support of the constitutionality of a statute is a pretty routine act.

Still, I wish they had stayed out of this one. Their silence would have been deafening.

MPAA will probably win

[Kefaa]

I would have expected this in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. It is also very likely that 2600 will lose. MPAA chose an excellent target, a magazine which provides information to "hackers". Hackers who are typified to mom and dad as heroin addict looking individuals who are destroying their email, stealing from their bank accounts, and compromising national security for "fun".

Now, if we consider the simplest case where OS company "M" asks video card vendor "V" to stop anyone attempting to write a driver for another OS. Ingenious in a way that it would prevent anyone from expanding say OS "L" to include the newest technology.

We can add that anyone caught linking to the new "illegal" driver as guilty of a crime (based on the ruling above) and the rest is history... If you find this unlikely, consider your favorite video card and on which OS they sell the most. In the name of "quality" they want to ensure that only the best drivers, code, programs, data, links, etc. are available to their customers.

Now consider the experience level of the average PC user who has gotten 50 ILOVEYOU messages (and probably opened five), who do you think they will believe?

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US

[Pogue Mahone]

Here's something from the DMCA (as quoted in this article) that I didn't notice before:

"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act];

If a "technological measure" can be circumvented, there's no way it can be described as "effective".

Kill 'em with their own words. ;-)

PS Sorry about the subject line. Something must be interfering with transmission.

--

Question...

[VValdo]

I'm probably posting this too late in the day for anyone to see it, but in their argument, the government says:

Computer programs are "essentially utilitarian" works. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 704 (2d Cir. 1992). Simply put, they are articles that accomplish tasks." Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1524 (9th Cir. 1992). DeCSS -- the computer program "[a]t the bottom of this case" -- is no different. Brief for Defendants-Appellants ("Appellants' Br.") at 2. As the district court found, "DeCSS, like any other computer program, is a series of instructions that causes a computer to perform a particular sequence of tasks which, in the aggregate, decrypt CSS-protected files." Universal City Studios, 111 F. Supp. 2d at 328-29; see also Appellants' Br. at 2 ("DeCSS decrypts the data on a DVD and stores it."). This function is entirely nonexpressive, and thus does not warrant First Amendment protection.

Fine-- computer programs are simply "articles that accomplish tasks." They are not speech, says the government.

In order to be a candidate for copyright protection, however

In no case does copyright protection of an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, ... design, and three-dimensional works, while not protected by copyright, may be protected by a patent.

See http://www.acs.ttu.edu/documentation/laws/lpc5.htm l#205.

If a program is not free speech, and it's not copyrightable, then it seems the government is saying that the DCMA does NOT cover any kind of software, and that any copyright notice on (non-content) with regards to software is misapplied.

The DMCA doesn't cover patents (does it?) so I guess it's still legal to use DCSS-like programs for the purposes of copying/accessing any copy-protected software.

W
-------------------

As much as the Usurper Annoys me ...

[FreeUser]

This is just the sort of ridiculous position I've come to expect from the US government, and with Bush in office I'm sure we can expect alot more "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" play with big corps.

As much as the Usurper annoys me, and as opposed to his notions as I am on several issues, it is IMHO unfair and inaccurate to imply that he will be engaged in any more quid-pro-quo money for politics behavior than his Democratic counterparts. The difference mainly lies in who the parties of the transaction will be (e.g. Big Oil vs. Big Law Firms), not the quantity of sleazy bargaining engaged in.

As far as this particular issue is concerned (Copyright Cartels stealing our rights through corrupt legislation bought and paid for), both parties are equally reprehensible. It was a republican congress that passed the bill, but a democratic president who eagerly signed it into law. The same is true for encryption and a number of other issues that concern technology folks BTW -- on the issues many of us really care about, there is no difference between the two major parties, and hence no real choice.

Scientific Internet vs. Commercial Internet

[ScottBrady]

I think these opening sentences sum up their views quite clearly:

The Internet and its supporting technologies have wrought a paradigm shift in the means of conducting trade. With its valuable potential for global product distribution at far lower transaction costs, electronic commerce has also created new business challenges, particularly for vendors of intellectual property.

To them the Internet is nothing more than a new distribution platform for commerce.

Think about it: we don't let anyone run a Television station nor do we allow anyone run a Radio station (reinforced recently by the veto of low power radio licenses). These are two mediums, distribution channels, owned and operated by Very Large Corporations. Suddenly the Internet comes along and allows anyone to speak their mind. Not only in text but in sound and video. What a scary thought.

What if someone makes a news site with fake information? The public would be mislead. What is someone makes an audio recording with hateful or vulgar speech? Can't let the children hear Bad Words. What if someone makes a video with naked boobies? Shock, horror and shame.

I believe the first part of the Internet to be regulated will be Medical Information. Doctors are already bitching when patients learn about alternative therapies. "We can't have them reading that voodoo. You have to help us Uncle Sam." It seems logical to me. You're dealing with Public Health which is an issue that tugs at emotions almost as well as "Save the Children."

The systematic destruction of Freespeech on the Internet has already begun. It's simply a matter of where the Government and Corporations will strike next.

Re:Corley should drop the case

[nellardo]

and all the material you might want to use is available elsewhere.

but in fact, often it isn't. Most DVDs these days include extensive "Added Features!" These typically include:

• The trailer(s) for the film itself (never on VHS, only trailers for other films the studio wants you to buy).
• Alternate language soundtracks (often never released in the US - I mean, really, "South Park" in French is not on the shelves in Blockbuster in the US (maybe in Quebec, maybe not), but it is on the DVD).
• Subtitles, both in other languages and for the hearing impaired (you can verify that line you can't quite hear, and oh, that's [rhythmic farting] during the "Uncle Fucker" song on "South Park").
• Director's commentary (never on VHS).
• Music-only soundtrack (never on VHS).

Now, add in the features you get on a better DVD release. How many of us bought a DVD player just to see all the groovy stuff they put on "The Matrix" DVD? I mean, you simply can't jump back and forth between behind-the-scenes and released footage on video - it's tape! it's linear!

Okay, I'm clearly getting overwrought :-) Time for some coffee and happy pills.

Re:Supreme Court should hear this case.

[ravi_n]

Actually fair use is what is required to reconcile copyright law with the First Amendment. Having a copyright on something includes the right to forbit others to speak it. Without the limitations on copyright that have been codified as fair use, copyright law and the First Amendment could not be reconciled.

Re:This sucks

[Alien54]

But what the &^$%^%*$%(has this to do with the issue at hand or the first ammendment ?

What is interesting is that there are books like The Anachists Handbook, that are printed legally in the USA. There is an interesting FAQ here. This passage is relevant:

Lyle Stuart (the auther)published the book (The Anachists Handbook) for a number of reasons. At the time Librarians across the US were being intimidated by the FBI and CIA who wanted to get names of people checking out books they felt were subversive. Lyle Stuart felt that publishing this book would make those efforts meaningless since people could simply buy the book without signing for it. Anyway Lyle did publish the book.

In my opinion the event of publishing the book was important. The contents are garbage. This was a very dangerous and brave publishing act for the 1960's.

People obviously do not want this info (found at 2600) spread around for reasons of their own profits. But somehow publishing on the internet is different than putting out a book?

HAve you contacted your Congressman

[MrBrklyn]

We really deserve everything we get. How many people sit in here whining about the violations of our rights under the guise of Copyright Protection, and then do NOTHING to influence Congress on the issue. We now have DMCA protected books critical to Dental Education which can be aquired only under a limited license for 180 days at a time. Our basic ability of read infomration is under attack by the printed publishers, using the DMCA as it's stick. We have Pat Schroeder telling us Libraries are a communist plot.... and narly a voice is heard from informed Open Sourced people. Where is the Open Source Lobby on capital hill? http://www.nyfairuse.org

Has anyone published a DeCSS book yet?

[FreeUser]

Has anyone published a DeCSS book? I think it would be a very interesting end-run around the DMCA. Publish a book, which includes the source code to DeCSS, details the algorithm, and perhaps includes some background information on what has happened. Include an "e-book" CD containing the exact text of the book, in ASCII or HTML format, for online reading.

I for one would pay as much as $50 for such a book (even though I have no use for DeCSS and already have a copy of the code in text format, printed out before it was banned). I would probably be wiling to pay twice that if some portion of the profits were to go to the EFF and/or 2600's legal defense fund.

It might be interesting to publish such a book and donate it to a number of libraries around the country as well ...

Again, is the effect inductive?

[Black Parrot]

If I link to an "illegal" site, does that make my site "illegal" too? If so, what happens when you link to my site?

The whole internet is supposedly within 7 hops of any page. It looks like the courts have just ruled the internet illegal.

Ah, well. Free speech was a nasty ideal anyway. You could end up with people criticising their governments or something. Maybe even going so far as to criticise a corporation or a consortium.

--

Time for action...

[Noryungi]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I guess it's time for us to show where we stand on this question.

To do this, there are only two (legal) solutions I can think of:

Support the EFF
Support 2600 Magazine

Please do it now. I know I will.

And so it continues...

[ClayJar]

It strikes me that, perhaps, the US government has just about finished it transformation from a government of the people, by the people, and for the people into a government of the businesses, by the businesses, and for the businesses. Of course, since a corporation is a legal person in this country, perhaps they've just misplaced part of their heads.

The scary thing is that almost nobody sees what's going on. When those that do see the dangers have the audacity to talk about it, they are branded as conspiracy theorists et al. I can hardly put forward the idea that our freedoms are being usurped by big business before I'm dismissed as a radical. If eternal vigilance is indeed the price of freedom, I'm afraid that the days of freedom are limited. Perhaps there are still many left, but at the rate we're progressing, we're getting dangerously close to the point where nothing short of a full-fledged revolt will have any chance at producing change.

We're precipitously close to an Orweillian society run, not by governments, but by big businesses who all but own the governments. If such a dystopia comes in to power, I'm afraid it may be extremely difficult to break the bonds of socio-economic tyrrany. At our current progress, such a system will at the very least attempt to take over; I can only hope that we can work fast enough and be strong enough to topple it in its infancy.

expected, but scary

[Alien54]

I guess it is expected that the US gov would enter a brief on the side of big business, but in this case it is slightly disturbing. heck, it is plainly disturbing.

These Things take a while to prepare, so I wonder if this is something that was developed under the Clinton Administration, and then now has the blessing of the Bush. It is doubtful that the Bush folks would have put something like this just since the swearing in, or even since the election, since they were so distracted with other business.

This then presents the picture of both political parties supporting the people with deep pockets. Again not unexpected. But upsetting, since you would hope that *someone* was not corrupt.

This separate from the merits of the debate to begin with.

That's exactly the point

[CaptainZapp]

can certainly use it as a judgement against their moral character pertaining to anything else they can get 'em on. If the defendants look like bad guys to the general public then they must be bad guys.

It's the same tactic as sleazy ambulance chasers use in rape cases.

Jury, look at this women: she drinks, she hangs around bars and she dresses in skimpy skirts. Dear jury: Anybody can see that she actually wanted it

The strategy is to get somebody convicted (or vice versa) simply on moral grounds which are not whatsoever related to the cause

This, in my book is blattant abuse of the judical system.

Could it be possible...

[Syllepsis]

...that free speech and intellectual property are mutually incompatible in a society where people speak in a language such as html.

I think that it is clear: A Corporate Republic will always choose IP, a Democracy will choose freedom. Enjoy the extra 0.0004 cents squelching DeCSS just might bring to shareholder dividends in a few years. You will not be able to link (speak, what's the difference?) freely because of it.

Supreme Court should hear this case.

[theDigitizer]

The core fundamental defense that 2600 has on its side is the fact that DeCSS is a player for Linux boxes, where there was no player provided by the industry. The MPAA didn't believe that Linux was an "authorized" system for use of their property.

That is why this case should keep going straight to the Supreme Court, where they will reaffirm the fair use doctrines, since after all, it is not illegal that you use whatever player you wish. Truly, it is the movie industry with their DVD region coding, and their "authorized player/use" that violates fair use and infringes on the rights of the users

Regarding the DMCA, I would have to say that I hate this legislation. It was done quickly, and with little regard for the actual consumer and rights of individuals. It's doubtful that the Supreme Court could overturn the DMCA based on this case. We will have to wait for another case that clearly infringes on the rights of the consumer(and believe me, it will come), and uses the DMCA as the wonderful law that is being broken in the case. Until then, we should find ways in which to use content within fair use, and wait to be challenged by the powers that be. Then we'll take them to the top.

The time has passed

[Prophet of Doom]

The US legal system was siezed by corporate interests quite some time ago. The branch of government that was supposed to be beyond corruption, above all others, is now no more than a glorified legal team for its corporate benefactors. Decisions like this one only serve to reinforce that thinking.

Someone who posted earlier wrote that all of the amateurish "as I read the first amendment" interpretations of the Constitution are meaningless. While I'm sure that the sentence wasn't intended to be a commentary on the state of our country, it actually is an excellent observation. Our views, the views of average citizens, no longer matter. The only views given any consideration are those that come from a source that can provide something in trade for that consideration. Be it campaign contributions, consulting fees, a partnership, whatever, you must have something to offer if you wish to be heard.

Sadly we have no one to blame but ourselves for the current state. We have allowed these circumstances to envelop us one small step at a time. We have done very little to become actively involved determining the direction of our country. Our freedoms have fallen slowly, often for the 'greater good'. Each one brought us closer to today. We look at issues one by one: copyright violations, reverse engineering, hate speech, guns, privacy violations. Each one of these is examined individually, often in times of crisis (the RIAA says "They're stealing our music!"), and a decision is made without really understanding how it might effect the rest of our lives.

I'm not sure of the solution to this problem. Far too many place far too much stock in the word of the mainstream media. That media presents stories in such a way that moves public opinion in the direction they choose, they have had years of practice. The common citizen needs to wake up and see the direction we are heading with each of our choices. Only then can we begin to right the system that has strayed of our course.

Hmmmm...

[ooze]

No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --

• (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act];
• (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act]; or
• (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].

alternative:

No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --

• (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a legal measure that effectively allws access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act];
• (B) has only commercially significant purpose or use to circumvent a legal measure that effectively allows access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act]; or
• (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a legal measure that effectively allows access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].

• And you are definitely allowed to make a copy of any content for personal use. And you are definitely allowed to watch any content whereever you are. And silly DVD region codes and encryption is attempted to prevent both. Just imagine you are not allowed to read an original Shakespeare in a non English speaking country. There are so many movies on DVD only available in one region code. Or you are not allowed to cite from a book, as this is prevented by a copy protection.

  That commercial thing just should not be the base of every decision. This gonna be much more dangerous than any cracking tool. This type of content protection is even used in agriculture! There are manipulated cereals that only germ if they are treated with some chemicals only available from the seeds company!

Gov vs 2600

[OpenSezMe]

Mark Twain was right, we have the Best Governement Money can Buy.