Slashdot Mirror
Japan: Police Arrest Journalists For Selling DVD-Backup Tools
Modellismo writes "Last week four journalists from Sansai Books were arrested for selling, through the company website, a copy of a magazine published last year (with a free cover mounted disc) focused on how to backup/rip DVDs. They violated Japan's Unfair Competition Prevention Law that recently has been revised to make illegal the sale of any DRM circumvention device or software. It's interesting to note that Japanese cyber police could arrest the Amazon Japan CEO, too, as the online giant is selling a lot of magazines, books and software packages for DVD copy and ripping: exactly what put Sansai Books' staff in trouble."
wonder how many enbedded devices produced in japan have this little piece of code in them...
The only country who bows lower to corporations than the US of A.
Two warnings were issued to Sansai Books by three industry organizations, including the Japan Video Software Association, protesting the sale of the guidebook, but the publisher continued to offer the product.
There are ways to dispute a law you disagree with. Disobeying it is usually not a good way.
It's a wonder that the publishing company (Sansai Books) weren't issued some kind of ceast and desist letter first, considering the company did not break the law when the magazine was published *last year* (presumably well before the law was ammended). It sounds like they were probably selling back issues and may not have fully appreciated the situation.
Unfair Competition Prevention Law
Most people would think that this law is designed to prevent unfair competition. What it really means is it's an unfair law to prevent competition.
Also, getting governments to step on other people for you is apparently NOT unfair competition...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
They are.
There are ways to dispute a law you disagree with. Disobeying it is usually not a good way.
The bus driver said to Rosa Parks.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
If the news is true, then it should end all doubt that the Japanese authorities are somehow tolerant of the unlicensed distribution of media, including Japan's number one entertainment export, anime. Even if it might be argued that Japanese copyright law doesn't apply outside Japan (or that Japan wouldn't dare to conduct a Megaupload-style enforcement action), this does raise the question of how anime can be fansubbed at all if the episodes can't be recorded and shared with the "outside world."
Some guys got arrested for dealing in counterfeit phone cards- they figured out how to duplicate them and started doing so en masse, selling them on the streets and train platforms around Tokyo. Ultimately a judge ruled that it was not a violation of law to duplicate or even sell the cards. It was only illegal to use them. Shortly thereafter you could see guys standing in front of police boxes, selling the cards to anyone walking by. Shortly after that NTT got rid of the phones that used those cards.
Japan has some weird laws. Someone once told me, and I don't know if it is true, that Japanese laws don't say what you can't do, they say what you can do. If there isn't a law specifically allowing something, then you can't legally do whatever it is.
He totally did!
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2010/7/24/3/cyber-police-the-movie-25425-1279956474-6.jpg
LOLOLOLOL XD
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Free speech needs to have some limits. Bomb threats and yelling FIRE in a theatre are the most popular counter-examples. Slander, exposure of trade secrets, and insider-trading are just a handful of other arguable candidates.
It IS possible for someone to clearly violate someone else's obvious rights under the guise of "freedom of speech". It can't just blindly be labeled "tyranny".
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
in the USA, government is an extension of Corporations
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The disease already hit Europe, we just had success fighting back up until now.
so loading linux can get you to jail in japan? even more so if it's a new pc with UEFI? or even loading windows 7 on a system with windows 8?
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre has always been a bit of a gray area from a legal point of view. Not really the concrete example of prohibited speech that most people seem to think. Bomb threats are less of a gray area since they're a form of threat and threats of violence are pretty clearly beyond the pale. I'm not going to go into slander except to say that I understand why the concept exists, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the concept. I find it disturbing that exposure of trade secrets would be anything more than a civil matter, and, of course, it should only be prohibited for those who have obtained them by being entrusted with them and agreeing not to reveal them or those who have obtained them through some sort of burglary or infiltration. As for insider trading, that's not a matter of speech. Rather it's the specific action of making trades based on insider knowledge that's a problem.
How Orwellian.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
> Free speech needs to have some limits ... yelling FIRE in a theatre are the most popular counter-examples
For the umpteen time, you along with the majority are conflating Free Speech with Property Rights and missing the point that "Laws are Relative" IN context.
Most theaters are PRIVATE property that are OPEN to the public. Let's go over the 2 scenarios:
1) Theater really IS on fire.
Yelling "Fire!" is a way to help the owner protect his property AND more importantly, help others from coming to harm and to prevent injury caused by said fire.
2) Theater is NOT on fire.
Yelling "Fire!" you may be causing unwarranted destructing to the property by creating panic along with implicitly causing people to get hurt.
"FIRE!" in a Theater" is NOT free speech UNLESS the theater itself is owned by the public.
what is wrong is that being poor or middle class dooms you to poor education, poor healthcare, and no chance to become rich. i want people to work for their dream. i don't want people to work from some rich guy who can never become poor, and the workers can never become rich. then what's the motivation to work? if you have no chance at your dream, why get out of bed in the morning? but the republicans in the usa advance social policies that pretty much lock the poor into poverty, the middle class into lower middle class, and the rich as permanently rich
i don't want to redistribute wealth. i want to say the guy born to the poor person has just as much chance to become wealthy as the guy born to a rich person. then you have a real meritocracy
but when you have rich kids getting cushy jobs through connections and then saying the poor don't know how to work hard to get rich (irony!) then we have a problem in society
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it doesn't mean anything. i've come to the conclusion the only people who like that word are, themselves, idiots
society has problems. do you want to fix it? or just go "it's all stupid" and walk away thinking you've said something valuable and important?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
everyone is greedy. so the movement towards permanent wealth inequality becomes natural. so a fair society counteracts this force by ensuring social safety nets of healthcare and education, so that greed doesn't mean you and your grandchildren are permanently poor and some other guy and his grandchildren are permanently rich
i want a meritocracy. i want a poor child to have just as much of a chance as a rich child. if this is not true, society is unfair, and all sense of freedom and equality is a sham
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There are various forms of corruption. There is the obvious south European method where every action requires a financial payment. This is obvious and the reason those countries are in such trouble from Greece to Mexico. But right in that same area, you got another kind. The corruption of the Catholic church that until quite recently claimed the Mafia was an invention of the communist to discredit the government. That was not just about rather generous kickbacks, it was a corruption of spirit. The Catholic church found that the accumulation of wealth by individuals at all costs was more wholesome then sharing the wealth, just like Christ teaches... oops oh wait.
You have to remember that being a politician is not a position of logic but of faith. Politicians believe, doesn't matter what their religion is, communism, socialism or capitalism, they all believe and any doubt cast on their faith is treated in much the same way as most religious believers deal with it. Heretic, unbeliever!
Japan is still ruled by very old men and they are old men that believe that their policies work. They did work, Japan had a huge economic miracle. Then the world changed and the old men didn't. They couldn't because their ideas and policies were not based on reality but on their fate in a system.
The real problem with ruling a nation is that what is required at anyone time might change and even contradict itself. You would need to adopt to the facts rather then attempt to force you ideology on facts that don't listen. Take patents, they are both desperately needed and something that needs to be abolished. You can't rule this with absolutes, you need to compromise, go to extremes and then re-balance. ALL THE FUCKING TIME!
The job market goes in direction X, balance it out with Y then re-balance with Z and do a bit of W just to test a theory out. Sometimes you need strong unions, sometimes you need them to give in and that can happen on the same day.
But you can't run a party election system with that. How can you run a campaign with "I will do whatever the country requires at a particular point even if it hurts a group that can hurt me bad".
So... we get politicians that grew up in a system, got their world view decades ago from teachers who couldn't do and making promises they can't keep.
Luckily for Japan, the people are sheep.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
There are simply too many examples of people going from nothing to something and becoming rich to make your view remotely valid. Some people's capacity isn't much more then working for someone else and some people's desire doesn't extend past that. There is where you are making your first mistake.
The raw truth of the matter is that people mess their lives up well before they can get a job. This is especially true in poorer areas where parents tend to lack parenting skills or even parents and the child gets trapped into gangs, drugs, violence, crimes, and so on. This also happens in more affluent communities too, but not to the same degree.
The republicans, as well as the democrats have no way of controlling that and your disdain for one is only a symptom of ignorance. The republicans have always been pro education, they just do not think the way the democrats seem to want to do things work. Take the NCLBA for instance. It said we are going to end the days of skipping over children's education and that teachers and schools, the very same people who claim to be able to get kids to learn and take jobs doing so, will have to find ways to teach kids or find new jobs. It was met with fierce opposition "how dare you expect teachers to teach every student under their charge". They specifically despised the alternative school provisions "how dare you give students of failing schools the ability to go to better performing schools so they can receive a quality education".
Yet Obama came to power and repackaged the same old shit and called it a gem while speaking kindly of it.
To blame any of you just said you thought was wrong on one party is only asking for more. Of course then again, ignorance is sometimes comforting. I guess you can always get satisfaction by getting more mad at republicans when democrat policies do the same.
If someone yells fire in a theater, calmly exit the building in an orderly fashion. There, solved.
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
then why do you engage in lawsuits rather than shoot people?
the law and courthouses are the answer to constant warfare
likewise, ensuring that being poor doesn't mean you don't have a chance, don't have bad healthcare, and don't have poor education, is simply a matter of government policy. who is fighting who exactly? where is the war?
if anything, we are preventing the war. to NOT counteract the effects of welfare inequality means that society will eventually go the way of the french revolution, the russian revolution, or arab spring: all of these situations are a natural result of a society entrenched in permanent welfare inequality
so what do you want? a bloody revolution when the people are fed up with the unfairness? or a simple government policy that ensures fairness?
you decide
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
so you are willing to accept that a smart kid, who, given the chance, will become a great person, should be denied, simply because they are born poor?
then what you are willing to accept, but don't understand yet, is that the french revolution, the russian revolution, or the arab spring, is coming to the USA
do you want that? no?
then simply make some simple government policies to ensure society gives everyone a fair chance. or the people get fed up and destroy society. because it is unfair
that's your choice
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the government will implement taxing policies and social programs: healthcare, education
then there is no motivation for the people to revolt because the rules of their society is rigged to keep them poor
i don't understand what genghis khan is supposed to mean. the usa is a highly militaristic society. if anything, more economic productivity simply means more money for the military. while a country of a few ultrarich and mostly the rest poor and lower middle class: this is a society that has less revenue to spend on the military
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-- Martin Niemroller, c.1900s
Then there's:
The simple fact is, most people don't give a shit about injustice until it effects them personally.
-- AngryDeuce, 2012
Personally, being as how Occam's Razor has demonstrated itself to be regularly useful, I lean toward the second version. Same idea, of course; and Niemroller's does provide examples, which is useful from a research and scientifically rigorous perspective. Still, Monsieur Deuce's statement maintains the principle while displaying a memorable terseness and emotional impact with considerable appeal.
On a related note, DRM provides a method for the copyright acquirer to maintain ownership of a right granted by the public, without providing a method for the right to be returned to the public at the copyright's expiration. Thus I find the self-help irrationality of DRM technology to be unconscionable; and breakers of same to have respectable morality on their side, if not (corporate-financed) legality.
How can you prevent copying?
insert dvd into drive
mount /dev/dvd /media/dvd (YMMD)
cd /media/dvd
cp -r * /home/joe_user/dvd_copy
then burn to a dvd.
Dammit, why is it always yelling "fire!" in a theatre? Don't you guys have any imagination or artistic initiative? Try: yelling "The Zerg are invading!" in a park or "My nipples are melting into deadly nanofluids!" in a pool.
A smart kid will become a great person in spite of being poor. That happens quite often. There are literally hundreds of thousands of scholarships looking for the one smart poor kid just to say their organization was part of making that great person. That is of course unless he ruins his chances first by joining a gang or by committing some offensive crime or wasting his education opportunities.
If you think the Arab Spring is coming to the US, the outcome will not be as you want. In the US, we are allowed to keep guns. Most people who do so are of the libertarian/republican mindset that think the federal government is limited in it's powers. The people who think like you tend to hide from guns and weapons and will be vastly outnumbered.
Fairness has little to do with it either. Life simply is not fair. But we have this ability to make the best of the situations we find ourselves in.
.....and get trampled to death or maimed by the over 60% of people who dwon't do that.
what are you talking about? are you saying it is impossible to setup universal healthcare and universal education? and you tax people's incomes progressively?
what's the big mystery?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You are perfectly entitled to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. You're completely free to do that, there's no one with gun pointed to you head or gagging you there.
What you are not entitled to do is to avoid the consequences of the yelling.
If it's true and you end up saving lives, you're a public personality and you loose (some of) your privacy.
If you did a good faith mistake and was caught, you will have trouble.
If you did it by malice and was caught, you're screwed.
Heck, I'm free to pick up a barbecue knife and play havoc on my neighbor's apartment - there's absolutment nothing preventing me to do that right now (besides my good will and the fact that I'm not a psychopath, besides looking as one - what probably would prevent my neighbor to open the door at this time of night anyway! =P).
But you can bet your mouse that, would I do it, I'll have my sorry arse canned for the rest of his farting life in some cell full of male rapists in the local prison. And THIS is the reason that makes nuts like me kept inside our homes without being tied under the table or chained in the bed. ;-)
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
Bad headline. Sansai Books dont do or claim to do journalism. http://www.sansaibooks.co.jp/ publishes magazines and "mooks" which are basically extended advertorial. The name sansai by the way means "three years old".
There aren't actually all that many rags to riches stories out there once you weed out those who's 'rags' were by Gucci. There are far more stories of bright people who got nowhere because they didn't have any startup capital or because their brand of brilliance didn't extend to business. Those stories don't tend to become made for TV movies though, so they're less noticeable.
As for the big two, both have been letting us down, but there are sound statistics that show the Democrats have historically let us down less and that the Republicans have consistently supported more concentration of wealth at the top.
The republicans with all the guns who believe in small government have been fully abandoned by their party. Certainly I can see no evidence based on the last several Republican administrations that small government is even on their radar. They've grown it every time. Those people with the guns are the ones who will one day see through that and start the Arab Spring.
Dude, I was talking about the people, not the party. If there ever was an Arab Spring in the US where the sitting government was overthrown, the whiners about education and the government not giving them enough crowd will not be the ones to rebuild the government. Those people will probably wish for the old government back because the gun owners typically see no fundamental problem with the government as it is envisioned by the founders, just as the government in practice who ignores the constitution instead of amending it.
The Republican party has shifted far right and the Democrats have shifted right as well. Consider how much Eisenhower looks like a modern day Democrat.
Those gun owning republicans have been dumped on by the party's friends as much as or more than the democrats. They tend to be pro union and pro worker's rights.
Once the lies are discredited, I believe the gun owners will prove to be neither Republican nor Democrat. They will heve a libertarian leaning, but some will lean to the left and some to the right. I suspect few will actually favor the Libertarian party as it stands (especially given it's rather permeable boundary with the neocons and Tea Partiers).
Riches is a subjective word to begin with. There are a lot more rags to riches stories then you think when you consider what is relatively rich to the person. Millions of people are born into welfare roles who through the existing education system end up either building their own mini empire or bettering their lifestyle to a point of having savings, investments, a home, and so on. People are able to do better then their parents were doing within the current education system. Sure there are people who are limited because they do not have access to funding or because they shine in areas of skill there are no demands for in their areas, but that is not a problem with the current education system- unless you somehow think schools are supposed to provide opportunities also or something.
As for the big two, listen, not penalizing success does not create a situation of only supporting those at the top. I can show you studies that prove we never landed men on the moon too, but I give them about as much credit as the studies saying one political party is for the rich and the other is for the poor. Wealth will gravitate towards the top simply because the top consistently take in more then they spend.Those at the top do not sit on that money or bury it in the back yard, they invest it and thereby create more wealth or put it into a bank who does the loans it to others who do the same. That is simply how the world works. Every barrier we put in place on that happening will mean a barrier for those on the bottom trying to make it to the top. It slows the economy and drive the costs of doing business up which means lower salaries to compensate.
This can be seen in action right now. There are some major factors in the costs of doing business. They can be described as raw material costs, energy costs, labor costs, and regulatory costs which would include taxes. When you increase taxes, you increase raw material and energy costs, when you increase regulation, you increase regulatory costs, and what is left, salaries. We are in a recession (some say a depression). Yet we got the EPA increasing regulatory costs and energy costs which also increases raw material costs. We got the government threatening to increase taxes which further increases those costs, and people are wondering why we aren't seeing jobs being created at a scale needed to pull us out of the recession. It's because all the excess money is going into a black hole.
Cheap energy and/or Cheap raw materials has always been the key hallmark of any period of economic boom. It certainly was a key during the Clinton boom where we had Cheap energy (oil, gas, electricity and Coal), we had China dumping cheap steal on the market that forced a lot of US steal manufacturing out of business, we had Canada undercutting US lumber with subsidized lumber. If you have that cheap energy and cheap materials, you can have high taxes without much problems, you can have high salaries without much problems. When you do not have that, you need to have lower taxes or lower salaries or both. The alternative to this is a price point for the products or services that end up slowing sales to a point where less of each is needed which means unemployment because less sales are being made and growing national debt because less tax revenue is being brought in.
That isn't universal and is dumb'd down a lot but it is largely true. There certainly are areas of the economy that will thrive regardless like bankruptcy law, debt consolidation services and some areas that we cannot live without or a without a minimum level of like health care and food.
of the Japanese police and two journalists.
I never said anything about penalizing success, that's your conclusion and it's up to you to support it or not.
It is undeniable that wealth distribution has become increasingly top-heavy and that middle and lower class buying power has failed to track productivity gains at all. Where is the incentive for that bulk of the population if the payoff all accrues to the very few at the top?
There is one group that is not suffering a depression, recession, or whatever you want to call it. That is those at the top. Many corporations have posted record profits in the last year. Yes, those you claim are being taxed to death are thriving. It's the rest of us that can't seem to get things moving in the 'jobless recovery'.
I can agree with you about regulatory costs to an extent. Regulations need to exist. Extarnalities must be internalized if a market economy is going to work at all. Those externalities are chalked up as 'regulatory costs' when they are internalized but in reality they always existed but were being palmed off on the middle and lower class. The other part is what could best be called 'compliance cost' That's the pure red tape, paperwork, and such associated with regulation. THAT part needs to be kept as small as possible. In many cases, page after page of regulations could be simplified down to a paragraph without a substantial change in effect. Where that is true the simplification must be done. Note though that it is often the incumbants in the industry that lobbied for those complexities in order to raise barriers to entry. They like to moan about their suffering, but it's fully self-inflicted.
If you believe any Republican president in the last 4 decades actually shrunk the government, you are the one with a delusion.
Go ahead and actually look at what Ike did while in office. Read the speech about the military-industrial complex. Does any of that honestly sound like any of the faux republican neocons?
I don't think i accused you of wanting to penalize success. It certainly is a democrat position where they publicly admit wanting to tax people who earn more at higher rates.
Those record profits you are talking of are largely due to restructuring and layoffs. Like I said, salaries is the place that gets cut.
You spew about externalities is a load of crap also. They are covered by the populations taking the cheaper products. Most of them are completely arbitrary depending on what nut case you want to listen to. They will still be palmed off on the middle and lower class populations if they were internalized because businesses need to make more money then they spend which means only that costs will increase and the population will either have to pay that increased costs or go without.
I do agree that regulation does need to exist and I do agree that it needs to be simpler and easier to understand. WE can have a book of 500 pages of regulation and it won't mean a thing if it doesn't correctly address what it intends to address. Instead of lots of regulations, we need a few well written regulations.
I also agree with the attempts at creating barriers to entry for competitors. This alone should be reason enough to get the old ones out and effective ones in place.
What you have is anecdotes, the research doesn't support it. Look at this for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_comparison
You can always find persons who managed despite a difficult upbringing. What you say about avoid getting into gang and other trouble might be right but here's the difference between the rich and the poor: Rich boy screws up and he's just being a boy, poor boy screws up and he is a criminal and fucked for life.
Oh and when all your rednecks finally find out that the dream of the american pie and land of possibilities has been stolen and replaced with "might makes right" the risk is that all those guns will tear the country apart. I hope that won't happen but you as a country are so off the track at the moment that it's scary. Your image of yourself doesn't nearly match the reality anymore.
"This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
Yeah, but their influence isn't as big. European politicians already got the message that passing into law whatever crap GEMA and BREIN wants effectively means giving their parliament seat to the local Pirate Party.
And this has what to do with the state of education how? I never said a wealthier kid doesn't have advantages, I said that poor people can and do use the education system to better their lives.
First, you say redneck like it is a bad thing. It isn't.
Second, I think you missed the part where the GP said the french revolution, the Russian revolution and the Arab Spring is coming to America. This would imply the country is already torn apart and the reality is that in a vacuum of power, those with the guns will fill that vacuum because the others claiming to want something better will be powerless. A revolution in the US will not end favorable for the op and most likely not for you. You both can wish for the best socialist outcome possible but reality will slap you in the face hard.
The part you're missing is that once the party bullshit is gone and the actual republicans with guns take over and so are again represented, the country would actually shift towards the left relative to where it is now.
Nothing is missing anything. The point was that it wouldn't be some liberal utopia like the op seems to want. There are highly vocal groups right now crying about the US government over stepping it's bounds on a lot of things. And by all means, it has ever since the civil war but was compounded by FDR, That stuff will go away, most states will refuse to be part of a new government that is more liberal then what we have if the government is overthrown.
A lot of those gun owners think Ike was about right. So do a lot of liberals if they cover up the R next to his name.
That would be a shift to the left and would make many Liberals happy.
Well, it's a classic example that some people think is cut and dried. It's actually a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes justification for finding against someone for distributing anti-draft pamphlets under the espionage act. As such, I tend to automatically find any argument that refers to the idea to be suspect until proven otherwise.
Keep thinking that and keep encouraging the Arab Spring in the US and we will find out. From the people and groups I know, it would seem like you are talking out your ass but I guess we are just guessing until it really happens.
Right, distributing a pamphlet that say the draft should be opposed by some legal means is a clear and present danger like someone shouting fire in a crowded theater. Never trust a professionalism liar. Oops Freudian slip, meant to type lawyer. . Free political discourse hasn't really been entrenched in the U.S since after WWII.
A threat is illegal if it is as such to mach a reasonable person fear for some harm or injury. If I break a chair, start running toward you screaming "I'll kill you for that". that's a threat. If a friend steals my favorite chair at a bar, and I sit down next to him and say "I'll kill you for that", it's not a threat. It's not the words or speech that is regulated
If I as a audience member shout fire in a crowded theater when no fire was present, people probably wouldn't believe me. If they did panic and someone gets hurt, I'm responsible because I knew or was reckless in not knowing the disorder that would result. If an actor shouted it as part of their act, and people in the off chance did panic he would not be responsible because it's not really reasonable to foresee people would confuse part of the act with a genuine warning. Again it's not the words themselve
Same for slander, trade secrets and whatnot. Speech in each of these just happens to be an element of some larger tortuitous (spelling? defined as of or relating to torts) action that resulted in distinct and palpable legal injury (the specific fact of loss, harm, or damage) DMCA type prohibitions of circumvention devices do indeed infringe on free speech, as the distribution results in no legal injury (no unauthorized copies are made via the mere distribution of a tool), and even the use of such tools do not as there are such things as fair use exemptions. To believe these types of provisions do not infringe on free speech, you would have to believe there is no such thing as fair use. You would also have to believe the existence of the tool rather than it's use is the proximate cause of copyright violations, thus ignoring analog hole that can bypass any DRM technology for non-interactive media.
So because others may behave stupidly, I should face restrictions?
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.