> Copyright owners also hoped that this would make player vendors obedient to them far beyond what the law actually mandated. > This is pure catnip to gaslight

> Copyright owners also hoped that this would make player vendors obedient to them far beyond what the law actually mandated. > This is pure catnip to gaslighting control freak companies like Apple. But this is exactly why it needs to be repealed. Its stated purpose is a farce and its true purpose is an injustice. > The Grokster case would partially overturn this, so you can get contributory liability for advertising infringing use cases of your software (aka "inducement"), independent of DMCA 1201. Which seems some combination of useless and unreasonable. Okay, so now Bram Cohen is diligent to never advertise BitTorrent for infringement, and then doesn't get sued because it has substantial non-infringing uses. But Grokster had non-infringing uses too, and many people still use BitTorrent for copyright infringement, so it seems like all the decision does is bring about censorship. For example, what happens if an employee of a tech company wants to come out as a proponent of the Pirate Party, advocate abolishing copyright and describe how advantageous the company's products could be to people without it? Isn't that just core political censorship, since it could get their company sued? Meanwhile the same tool is legal as long as they don't do that, so the only difference is the expression of political speech. > Problem is, I struggle to see a legal way to sell the tools necessary to decrypt such works. The other problem is, what does that even mean? Suppose I put a copyrighted work in a box and screw it shut. Is a screw driver now a circumvention device? It has uses beyond copyright infringement, but as soon as anybody uses CSS on a DVD of a public domain film, so does DeCSS.