Talk:DeCSS
Omigosh!!! It has been 7 months since this case is decided and this article is still not updated... O well 'tis rectified now! -- EmperorBMA|話す 01:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If the program is illegal, why is there an image of it sitting right on Wikipedia?
Pingveno
- The image only shows one part of the program. Without the rest, it can't work. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 12:58, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Making more NPOV
I have toned down the section where the article parrots the old "CSS doesn't stop piracy" argument by pointing out that CSS does stop casual copies of DVDs to DVD+/-R blanks. Samboy 17:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- BTW, the act of copying a DVD to DVD-R is perfectly legal. Piracy involves stealing and/or distribution of stolen goods. CSS has certainly been proven not to prevent piracy. What it does do is prevent the consumer from their legal right to make a personal copy. --Thoric 22:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Under the WIPO Copyright Treaty, it is illegal to bypass copyright protection, or to distribute something that's meant to do so. This partially supercedes previous personal-copy laws. The treaty is implemented in the U.S. with the DMCA, in the EU with the EUCD, and in various other places with other laws. Most of the world signed the WCT. There's no place for clear-cut violations of it on Wikipedia. —Simetrical (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I admit, there isn't one. There is a clear violation of both the DMCA (see subparagraphs (a)(1)(A) and (a)(2)-(3)) and the EUCD (similar language there). But as long as the illegality in those countries is noted with the links, I have to agree that places like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (which might not have similar restrictions) as well as non-English-speaking countries are enough to justify allowing the inclusion of the link with appropriate notices. —Simetrical (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Remove flamewar history
I believe the section about the flamewar over DeCSS licensing is very much out of place. I'll remove it soon. DonDiego 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's pretty material: DeCSS was initally a closed source microsoft windows application... the argument the it was itself created to play content under Linux could only be considered suspect at best. The discussion about the argument over the GPL is important because it shows the context. Jon was not liked by the folks working on Livid because his premature relaease of a tool only useful for ripping (and not linux playback) sabotaged their efforts.... Later they were forced to help defend his actions because the fate of all CSS decryption code had become inexorably tied to Jon. --Gmaxwell 18:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)