Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Oct 2011 13:31 UTC
Permalink for comment 492240
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-23
From the pages you've linked, Judge Merritt said;
By contrast, Lexmark would have us read this statute in such a way that any time a manufacturer intentionally circumvents any technological measure and accesses a protected work it necessarily violates the statute regardless of its ?purpose.? Such a reading would ignore the precise language ? ?for the purpose of? ? as well as the main point of the DMCA ? to prohibit the pirating of copyright-protected works such as movies, music, and computer programs. If we were to adopt Lexmark?s reading of the statute, manufacturers could potentially create monopolies for replacement parts simply by using similar, but more creative, lock-out codes.
So DMCA is, was and continues to provide measures for the "prohibit the pirating of copyright-protected works such as movies, music, and computer programs"
Regardless of how you want to read into the DMCA, it no longer affects DVD play back anymore, but you seem hell bent on trying to pass on the rights of the rest of the world in the USA for some reason.
And you are right in one instance. VLC was never illegal - American's using it to watch or rip DVDs were using it illegally.