DeCSS Trade Secret Case Comes to an End - Again 193
Andrew Bunner writes "We asked the courts to rule on our appeal of the DeCSS preliminary injunction (even though the DVD CCA dropped the case) and... we won! No more preliminary injunction. Here's the official ruling (pdf)." This is the last gasp of this case, which we've been following for some years now. This ruling goes into some depth analyzing the trade secret claim, gets the ruling "right", and should be helpful in future cases on similar topics.
How does the DMCA and Trade Secret Work Together? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How does the DMCA and Trade Secret Work Togethe (Score:5, Interesting)
If people are going to buy your product, and be exposed to it, they will naturally have to gain some familiarity with it. It's silly to want a food critic taste your food so he could publish a glowing review and then get upset when he writes what he (correctly) believes to be your ingredients.
The DVD-CAA wants the DVD format to be adopted and for it to be widespread and popular, but they complain about anything that comes from people using it and that would help distribution.
It's been said, but if they want their DVD encryption to be impenetrable (and hence popular with the MPAA) they should actually try to make it tough to crack instead of hiding behind a flimsy law that has apparently been dismissed in this particular case.
It's just like any software (i.e. IE) being lackadaisical about security and then complaining about people breaking the law by writing viruses. Yeah, it's a law, and people shouldn't do it, but then some people also don't care.
Re:How does the DMCA and Trade Secret Work Togethe (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How does the DMCA and Trade Secret Work Togethe (Score:5, Funny)
So sue me.
Wait, I shouldn't have said that
Re:How does the DMCA and Trade Secret Work Togethe (Score:5, Interesting)
Except, that is theoretically impossible, which is the whole point of the DCMA. Since bullet proof DRM impossible, just make it illegal to create device that doesn't honor DRM, then the average user will never be able to break it, and the minority of people that do, will be small enough to ignore or sue. Well that was the theory until p2p showed that it was possible for the minority to anonymously distribute their cracked works to the majority.
Of course, all this DRM is completely unnecissary, just look at the software industry's experiance with it.
if it doesn't fit... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:if it doesn't fit... (Score:2)
Coolio WILL find the real hacker.
yeah, just like OJ WILL find the real killer
OJ IS INNOCENT.
bahahah
THE JUICE IS LOOSE!
ahahaaah, Coolio's going to have Johnny Cochrane in his trial.
hahaha
if the packet don't fit, you must acquit!
ahahahha
hahahaha
ahahahahaha
Does this mean... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh I've waited to press that key for sooo long.
Re:Does this mean... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:5, Funny)
I like the /. comments in the findings (Score:5, Informative)
/* Thanks to Phil Carmody <fatphil@asdf.org> for additional tweaks. */
/* DVD-logo shaped version by Alex Bowley <alex@hyperspeed.org> */
/* Usage is: cat title-key scrambled.vob | efdtt >clear.vob */
#define m(i)(x[i]^s[i+84])<<
unsigned char x[5]
n){for( read(0,x,5 );read(0,s
); write(1
[y=s [13]%8+20]
i=m( 1)17 ^256 +m(0) 8,k =m(2)
0,j= m(4) 17^ m(3) 9^k* 2-k%8
^8,a =0,c =26;for (s[y] -=16;
--c;j *=2)a= a*2^i& 1,i=i
<<24;for(j= 127; ++j<n;c=c>
y)
c
+=y=i^i/8^i>>4^i>>12,
i=i>>8^y<<17,a^=a>>14,y=a^a*8^a<<6,a=a
&nbs p; >>8^y<<9,k=s[j],k ="7Wo~'G_\216"[k
&7]+2^"cr3sfw6v;*k+>/n."[k>>4]*2^k*257/
  ; 8,s[j]=k^(k&k*2&34)*6^c+~y
Re:I like the /. comments in the findings (Score:2, Interesting)
(In code mode, it seems to preserve spaces (but not tabs for some reason?). I'm not sure if it's the TT tag or whether it uses something like s/
Re:I like the /. comments in the findings (Score:2)
Re:I like the /. comments in the findings (Score:2)
Re:I like the /. comments in the findings (Score:2)
I hate dealing with that kind of stuff
Re:I like the /. comments in the findings (Score:2)
That requires eyes... (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
But no DVD X Copy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. That's an apparent contradiction. This is why we have appeals courts. When contradictory rulings start happening at the first-levels, the appeals courts have to sort them out. If the appeals courts can't get their act together, that's what Supreme Courts are for.
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of DeCSS is single fold, to decrypt commercial DVDs.
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't tell me it's okay for someone to abridge my rights just because you don't think "I need that".
I don't personally care about the DVD X-Copy folks, but I do care deeply about the implications when it's been alleged that their product which has other, plainly legal uses, has been deemed wholly illegal.
The more the big media companies control the means of production, the harder it becomes for independent producers.
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:2)
If I'm making a backup copy of a DVD I bought I certainly do need something like that though.
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:3, Informative)
Under the DMCA you are not allowed to make a backup of a DVD you bought if that DVD is CSS or otherwise encrypted to prevent copying. Sucks but its true.
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:4, Interesting)
If Congress passed a law tommorrow that said it was illegal to breath, would you stop?
The DMCA is invalid on its face, just as a law prohibiting respiration would be. It may take some time for the courts to affirm that, but it's still no law, as the courts have ruled many times before that an invalid law is null and void - not from the moment they say it is, but from the moment it was passed. Besides which, I'm currently fortunate enough to live outside that jurisdiction anyway.
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:5, Funny)
However I recently made the following resolve. In the event of Jack Valenti's death, I will celebrate by buying a decent quality DVD writer at the first available opportunity.
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Our rights have been trampled here, the innocent have not only been assumed guilty and lumped into a guilty mass, but to add insult the best response by the MPAA is that we should perhaps shell out more dough; and its FUNNY? - RTFL
It is apprehensible that some token jackass with a triple digit income suggests I pay a red cent in order to obtain what I have already purchased...such wisdom is what has limited the amount of dvd's I own to literally a handful.
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:5, Insightful)
The contents of his videos are protected by copyright law, so although you can use a legally acquired copy however you want, you're right that you can't make more copies without a license.
CSS is an algorithm (and thus uncopyrightable), it isn't patented (if it had been nobody would have had to crack a DVD player's keys or reverse engineer the algorithm to begin with), and now it isn't a trade secret anymore. What exactly do you think he needs a license for?
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:2)
The point of DeCSS is single fold, to decrypt commercial DVDs.
So, just to make sure I have this correct...
If I use a standalone DeCSS implementation to rip the disk, then use a remastering program that lacks any concept of CSS, I can make my fair-use-rights backup without violating the DMCA?
Somehow I doubt so obvious a solution would work, but that does seem like the only logical conclusion we can get from combining
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:2)
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:2)
I hope you're not implying that that is illegal. We have a deal with a local news station to take their news broadcasts and put them on the web. We wanted to use a TiVoDVD to make this easy. Unfortunately, TiVo creates CSS'd dvds.
We ended up just using Quicktime Broadcaster and Darwin Streaming Server.
The good news is, we've got a TiVoDVD in the office that isn't doing anything... time to put it to nefarious use.
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:2)
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why the DMCA is a bad law. You can make legal backups, however you cannot circumnavigate teh copy protection on the DVD. So while you have the rite to make a copy, you do not have legal access to do so. If a DVD is NOT CSS encrypted (and yes, there are some of those out there) then you can just treat the DVD contents like any other data when making a copy. So as long as the DMCA stands, DVD X Copy has no legal use.
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:2)
But what if I somehow obtain a DVD writer that actually copies the entire DVD. Now I can make a backup copy without bothering to decrypt anything. I suppose buying a DVD writer that actually works or fixing a broken one is illegal too.
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:2)
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:5, Informative)
At current, the DMCA takes precedence. It is an all inclusive law that supersedes prior copyright law.
USC Title 17 section 1201 "Circumvention of copyright protection systems", 1201(c)(1): "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:2)
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But no DVD X Copy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Never mind that it would also be the perfect place to plug in that DeCSS code that was just ruled not to be a trade secret! :)
Re:Pay attention :) (Score:5, Informative)
Go back and read it again. He said no such thing. He said that once it was out, and all over the internet, it may have ceased to be a trade secret. Since this is the standard, a trade secret that becomes common knowledge is no longer a trade secret, the ruling restored the status quo before Kaplin turned activist.
The entire ruling is about how once a trade secret is no longer a trade secret, it is basically in the public domain. You can hold the individual/company/etc liable for the release, but not the people who distribute something that is no longer a trade secret. The appeal was about the injunction, and the harm that could be done if an injunction was not granted. IE: since it was no longer a trade secret, the judge (Kaplin) overstepped his boundries by issuing an injunction because the case didn't meet both standards required to do so. 1. Harm if the injunction was not issued, 2. Likelyhood that they would win the case. They had to succeed on both counts, and they succeeded in none.
Keep in mind, you can't patent a trade secret, and you can't claim a patent IS a trade secret. You can only choose one method: Patent it, sharing how you did it with everyone but they can't profit from it without your permission, or: Make it a trade secret, and protect that secret. The differences are that patents expire after a fixed term of years and trade secrets expire once they are no longer a secret. Their only recourse is to sue the original party that caused the secret to get out, maybe Xing.
Re:Not a trade secret even before publication (Score:2)
Part of the problem of intellectual property law is that it's purely a national thing. In this instance, both the US and Norway courts agree, but this isn't always the case.
I started following this case since the beginning, even bought a T-shirt from 2600.com to help pay for the legal costs. Yea, its not much help, but was really broke at the time, all I could do since I had just opened a new busin
A friend came up with an amazing analogy... (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems that back in the late 1800's in America (mentioning this for non-U.S. /.ers) there was this saloon in the West that was kind of a run-down,
ramshackle joint that was frequented by a few loyal patrons and not too many
others. Basically,
while the saloon didn't go out of its way to publicize itself to
out-of-towners (not much point given that it was in a remote area) it managed
to do a fairly steady trade despite the occasional brawl that caused property
damage and the persistent requests from a particular fellow for free drinks.
More nights than not, the proprietor of the saloon would watch this drunk come wandering in through the doors, sit down, and lay a line on him about how he's trying to pull things together and how he'd just make enough to keep himself in beans and couldn't the bartender just pour him a shot or two to fuzz the edges and whatnot. And again, more nights than not, the bartender would take pity on the poor guy and pull out the whiskey.
Now, mind you, this went on for some time, and while the bartender was an easy mark even he had his limit. So one night, after the bartender already gave the fellow three shots on the house, he decides to cut the guy off.
"Look," he says, "while I'm really sorry to hear that things still aren't working out for you I don't think that I can keep giving you free drinks. I've got to make ends meet too, you know."
So the drunk says, "I don't suppose you've got anything I can do to get another drink tonight?"
The proprietor, not particularly wanting this fellow to hang around all night and certainly not expecting him to take him up on his proposition, says "Well, you see that spittoon over there? If you take a swig out of that I suppose I could give you a drink to wash it down."
No sooner did he finish his last sentence than the drunk walked over to the spittoon and hefted it off of the floor. Before the bartender could stop him, the fellow put the rim to his lips, tipped the bottom of the metal container up into the air, and began to swallow. To the bartender's dismay, the guy continued to slowly chug the thick contents of the spittoon. When he had finally gulped the final remnants of the container, he threw it to the ground, wiped off his lips with his shirt cuff, and gagged, "So, do I get the drink?"
"You can have the bottle!" exclaimed the bartender, immediately pouring the first shot. "But tell me, why did you swallow the whole damn thing? You only needed to swig it to earn the drink."
And the drunk replies: "It was all one long string."
This is why the law should embrace both free enterprise and fair use; the average person will draw from both, the average business can profit from both, and the content creators are encouraged financially to continue to create without becoming discouraged financially by 90-year royalties.
what exactly is this amazing parallel? (Score:4, Funny)
They have to drink from a spittoon?
Re:what exactly is this amazing parallel? (Score:3, Funny)
You, bastard!!! (Score:2)
Re:A friend came up with an amazing analogy... (Score:3, Funny)
It has to do with superstring theory and is really rather complicated, you're better off not knowing as the alternative leads to insanity.
libdvdcss (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:libdvdcss (Score:4, Informative)
I'm loath to respond (Score:3, Insightful)
Futhermore, those that do make the decision have enough balls to do what's right by (firstly) staying true to their founding idealogies and (secondly) keeping the distribution spottless from a legal standpoint. I for one am glad they've made the hard decisions like these -- and I'm VERY glad that YOU weren't th
what about 2600? (Score:5, Interesting)
wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The court stated that trade secret status should not be deemed destroyed merely because the information was posted on the Internet..."
Holy crap, what exactly *would* destroy trade secret status if posting to the internet doesn't do the job?
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The court stated that trade secret status should not be deemed destroyed merely because the information was posted on the Internet..."
Holy crap, what exactly *would* destroy trade secret status if posting to the internet doesn't do the job?
Bringing in a server log or two that show that a few million people downloaded the former trade secret.
Posting to the Internet alone is an attempt at publication. However, if nobody knows it's there, it's not a very damaging one to the secret. So, if only four people downloaded the "secret", those four people could just be told to keep quiet and the trade secret is still in tact.
However, if four million people saw it... oops, secret's out of the bag. At that point, the owners of the former trade secret can go after the source of the leak, but they've lost control of their secret and it now longer gets its protection from further spreading. That secret is now public information, sorry.
Re:wtf? (Score:3, Insightful)
As if things don't spread from small. Four people that each share it with four people and so on... By the time a court would even look at those four, it's all over the net. But, if they want to keep their reality distortion field...
Kjella
Re:wtf? (Score:2)
Re:wtf? (Score:2)
Then it's a chain letter - aren't they illegal too?
Re:wtf? (Score:2)
Yes, but publishing the information needed to retrieve said data from freenet would then become illegal, since that'd be what releases the secret.
slashdot quotes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:slashdot quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes we are watched.
Oh yeah. The analogy?
Buying a DVD is like buying a book locked in a safe, where the seller won't give you the combination unless you pay him additional money.
This is as far as the judge took it in ruling against 2600. My analogy went on to point out that DeCSS was like getting the combination from some other source to open the safe you own to read the book you own. And there's certainly no law against cracking your own safe, or providing instruction to someone on how to do it.
KFG
Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
(Parent comment is almost as strange as the utterly pointless spitoon comment earlier...)
If you bought a book locked in a safe to which you did not have the combination you would not be able to read it. So the only way this analogy makes sense is if the "additional money" you speak of is the money the DVD forum collects from manufacturers who create DVD playback systems
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
And just as in the case of a safe, you have even payed for, and thus own, the locking mechanism itself. It is built into your computer's DVD drive.
KFG
Re:slashdot quotes (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, the evidence in this case is very sparse with respect to whether the offending program was actually created by improper means. Reverse engineering alone is not improper means. (See footnote 7 ante.) Here the creator is believed to be a Norwegian resident who probably had to breach a Xing license in order to access the information he needed. We have only very thin circumstantial evidence of when, where, or how this actually happened or whether an enforceable contract prohibiting reverse engineering was ever formed.
There were dozens of slashdot comments to this effect when the whole shebang was going down the first time.
I wonder if I should be happy that our voice is heard worldwide and effecting the very body of law, or scared shitless that AC's like me (an International AC, I should add) could be making ripples in court decisions that effect merely the state of California.
The Internet really bends/breaks the legal system, and this brief is a great example of it.
Re:slashdot quotes (Score:3, Interesting)
Really I thought this was the reason why DVD CCA gave up -- in order for them to win they would have had to actually trace the misappropriation back to Johansen. But his act was ruled legal (twice), so that is a dead end. Once he placed DeCSS into the public domain, nobody downstream can be any more liable that he was.
DVD CCA tried to bail out... but still lost anyway (Score:5, Informative)
But, this issue over whether the injunction should have been granted in the first place got appealed and hadn't been decided yet. Well, actually, it had been already decided that this violated the free speach protections in the US Constitution by the appeals court, but the CA Supreme Court overturned that ruling. However, the CA Supreme Court returned the case to the appeals court to let them rule on the argument that the injunction was an improper use of the CA trade secret laws.
That's where the appeals case was when the DVD CCA abaondoned the original case that generated the injunction and the appeal. Now, normally, such an appeal automatically dies as a moot point when that kind of thing happens, but the appeals court rejected the DVD CCA's request to dismiss because this was such a novel argument, it really needs an appeals ruling to guide future cases.
And here comes that ruling... that the injunction shouldn't have been granted in the first place. That's now on the record as an appeals ruling and can be cited in other future cases.
The DVD CCA balled out of the original lawsuit fearing that they were going to lose, and furthermore lose in a way that'd get them in trouble in future cases. Well, guess what, their worst nightmare came true. A declarative ruling that the preemptive injunction that they got was one they shouldn't have, so that set of legal paper goes in the "Don't try that again" pile. The key arguement to their case has basically been shot down... CSS doesn't appear to be a trade secret anymore in CA.
Re:DVD CCA tried to bail out... but still lost any (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe a statement along the lines of "This information is believed to have been legally obtained by means of reverse engineering." could take away much of the uncertainty in future cases.
Combined with rapid internet wide distribution, this seems a solid way to publish information obtained through reverse engineering in the public domain.
Re:DVD CCA tried to bail out... but still lost any (Score:3, Interesting)
can i use css now? (Score:5, Funny)
You always could. (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, and that's not what this decision was about. This was about *De*CSS, which means that you can now *remove* the style sheets from your website.
I bet there are a lot of web sites where people tried style sheets once but then realized it was illegal to remove them.
Re:You always could. (Score:3, Funny)
does this mean (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:does this mean (Score:5, Funny)
(Donning my asbestos underwear)
No. First, Debian distros need to work.
Re:does this mean (Score:2)
As usual, didn't rtfa ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:As usual, didn't rtfa ... (Score:5, Informative)
I never appreciated this until now... (Score:5, Funny)
Simply put, by supporting CSS, you support underage drinking.
Re:I never appreciated this until now... (Score:2, Funny)
Sherman, Set the Wayback Machine (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems my report and analysis [slashdot.org] from August 2001 was closer to the mark than I dared believe. To wit:
I essentially said the same thing in my analysis: That DVD CCA's entire case hinged on whether the end-user "license" was valid and binding.
My opinion remains unchanged: end-user "licenses" are unethical, and should not be allowed to stand. See my old-ish editorial [vwh.net] on the subject for more detail.
Schwab
Re:Sherman, Set the Wayback Machine (Score:3)
This ruling is worth a read (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also developing an enormous amount of respect for those judges whose opinions manage to be very readable, even when discussing arcane technicalities of law (and, in this case, technology) -- many of us engineers could learn a thing or three from these folks about clear writing.
-Brian
Re:This ruling is worth a read (Score:2)
Re:This ruling is worth a read (Score:2)
Re:This ruling is worth a read (Score:2)
'Plaintiff' is singular, 'their' implies plural.
Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Lesson: next time this happens, *everyone* post the code on their website
Re:Summary (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Summary (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Summary (Score:2)
I don't know how widespread the courts would consider the distribution of the MS source code to be at the moment. However, the greater danger there is probably from copyright infringement rather than trade secrets. If the kernel maintainers allow portions of the MS source code to leak into Linux there could be problems. Unfortunately, they will have no way of knowing that code has been copied unless
321studios (Score:2, Redundant)
On the other hand maybe this would open another can of worms and possibly alow another set of attacks on the Decss teknoligy?
Re:321studios (Score:2, Informative)
Probably not.
Though the appellate court found that the CSS is not really a trade secret anymore, that doesn't have very much to do with the issue of why DVDXCOPY exists - to make copies of CSS encrypted media.
The DMCA prohibits the distribution of a means to circumvent a method used to restrict access to copyrighted material. This issue remains regardless of the trade secret status of the algorithm.
OK, lets not kill ALL the lawyers, then (Score:5, Funny)
Hopkins & Carley, Arthur V. Plank,
Allonn E. Levy, San Jose;
First Amendment Project, Oakland,
James R. Wheaton, David A. Greene;
Tomlinson Zisko Morosoli & Maser,
Thomas E. Moore III, Palo Alto;
Electronic Frontier Foundation, San
Francisco, Cindy A. Cohn
You are now on the protected list.
Case not ended.. just the preliminary injunction (Score:3, Informative)
As stated at the end of the PDF:
It is not a final adjudication on the merits
As far as I understand, this decision doesn't mean anything about DeCSS being legal or not, it is just about the fact that the injuction for stopping publication on Bunner's site was an abuse of the trial's court discretion.
It doesn't even say that distributing it is legal. As I understand, it does just say "Bunner distributed that when it was already public knowledge, so an injunction against that was innapropriate".
Now, he could be sued for distributing it, no?
I apologize for the pain this is causing anybody (Score:5, Interesting)
I posted the original story [slashdot.org] about deCSS back in November of 1999. It probabally would have been brought up eventually here on Slashdot, but it was amazing to me to see just how quickly this legal action (originally against Jon Johansen) spawned a whole battle cry from readers here on this site. I was an active participant on the LiVID discussion group back then and this was one situation where I knew that this really needed to be seen by a much larger audience. I had absolutely no idea just how far the
My only regret is that similar actions haven't happened against the DVD Consortium (formerly DVD Forum and prior to that... well, does it really matter?) in regards to the DVD-Video specification. Although some of it is patented (mainly the MPEG-2 portions), for the most part that DVD-Video spec is protected by the same trade secret laws that the CSS algorithms were also protected by. The only problem is that the DVD-Video spec is much more complicated and won't simply fit on the back of a T-shirt.
I had the good fortune of actually being able to read the formal DVD-Video specs (as an employee), and implemented a multiplexor/authoring system following those specs. It is from this experience that I am absolutely committed to open specifications. There was so much I wanted to disclose to the other LiVID members information I knew about those specs, but I deliberately stayed on the sidelines and simply said "Yeah you are going in the right direction" or "No, I think you got that model wrong. Try something else."
The full potential of utilizing the DVD-Video still has yet to be realized, and unfortunately I don't think it ever will be. I'm talking a genuine "hacking" of the capabilities of a standard DVD-Video player like you have in your home entertainment system, not just the Linux box that you also want to play some DVD movies on (although knowledge of the spec can also help that effort). The DVD/optical disc format is a totally different medium of delivery from video tape, but unfortunately most movie studios simply treat it as only a glorified version of a VHS cassette (DVD extras on a typical release not withstanding). Worse yet, people who consider DVDs to be just another version of VCDs.
I also wouldn't mind trying to put something together right now, as I'm currently unemployed, but that is another story altogether. I can't afford the current specs even if I was fully employed right now.
Whats the big deal? (Score:2, Interesting)
DeCSS can be compared to this:
If you use a lamp to light through the mail, and see the contents.. is that illegal? yes!
But what if it is your own mail? still illegal? No!
Too many focus on the anti-piracy concept of CSS, but it seems to me that nobody (atleast not many enhough) even conciders that CSS locks out some of the potential users of DVD.
Important to keep jurisdiction in mind... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What exactly do you mean (Score:2)
Re:What exactly do you mean (Score:4, Informative)
Pierre