Jon Ribbens <jon+ukcr...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

DeCSS (or something like it) is essential if you want to copy the DVD movie to a different format. The important question is - why is this illegal? the usual test is that the device has a "substantial, non-infringing use" in which case the fact you *can* use it for something illegal becomes irrelevant - an example would be that cars can be used for ramraiding (and indeed, stolen cars are frequently used for such). This does not make a car a burgler's tool as it isn't the car's normal use. Trying to claim that DeCSS isn't used for copying at all (especially given the new rush of mpeg4/divx conversion tools that have mysteriously started doing the rounds, just at the right time to be used as an example) is not a good idea - all your opponent has to do in court is *themselves* make an illegal copy via DeCSS; showing a DVD movie in court, then removing the DVD drive entirely and showing an MPEG4 version claimed to be converted *using DeCSS* would blow that out of the water in pretty short order. The important thing to show is that DeCSS is not a tool particularly suited to piracy - It is not and cannot be used to make DVD copies of DVDs; it is not and would not be used to make VHS copies of DVDs (which would just have the killer signal disabled in a suitable standalone player and be taped directly from the output). DeCSS *directly competes* with authorised software players and standalone players, and a better viewpoint is that DeCSS is being pursued as an anticompetitive act, to protect their *licencing scheme* not the legally-permitted access to the works *you have already paid for* The latter point is the important one. You have *paid* for a copy of the copyrighted work. You have *paid* for a licenced DVD drive, and a licenced player (are there any DVD drives out there that don't come with one bundled?). It is any attempt to step outside of their nice, advertiser friendly, Region-code enforced sandbox that they are coming down on; It is a letter-perfect replay of their "case" against home VCRs, and I suspect even they know this is a rearguard action, but one worth doing, as every month they can stave off free competition is another month the revenue streams from the licencing continue to flow.