5 ms·

"This is baffling. I really don't understand what you don't get about this." The part where the Supreme Court and the US Attorney General say you're wrong is p

"This is baffling. I really don't understand what you don't get about this." The part where the Supreme Court and the US Attorney General say you're wrong is probably your first hint. . "To watch a DVD you need to decode the CSS." Yep. . "You either have authorisation to do this, or you don't." Authorization is a function of whether you paid for it. . "On Linux there is no authorised method to do this, and thus it is illegal." 1) There doesn't need to be. Authorization is not about what technology is in use. 2) There are actually Linux DVD players which have paid for their Fraunhofer license; I don't know why you keep claiming otherwise, when a simple Google search can straighten this out. 3) Again, authorization has nothing to do with what software you're using, and everything to do with whether you plonked five dollars on the till at Walmart. It's called the First Sale Doctrine. . "Whether anyone is interested in prosecuting that illegal use is irrelevant to this discussion" Why do you keep bringing up something nobody else is talking about, then saying "but that's irrelevant?" . "i) circumventing the rights protection without authorisation is illegal." Yes, this is the piece you keep repeating, like just saying it a bunch of extra times will change what authorization is. . "Thus, your sentence "What's illegal is leaving it decoded and redistributing it to others" covers 2 illegalities" (sigh) . "Yes, I have tried to look" Try harder. There's Fluendo, LinDVD, the codecs in Ubuntu have been licensed from Cyberlink since 2008, Boxee is legal, your TiVo (which is Linux) can give you a legal remote viewer as a .deb, et cetera. You're too busy feeling correct to check the things being said to you. . "I really don't understand what you don't get about this." Which is commonly the case for people who don't consider what it means that they think someone citing the Supreme Court and the US Attorney General is wrong about the law. (cough) Please have a nice day; I'm bored of this.

DanBC 14y ago
> Authorization is a function of whether you paid for it. No it isn't. Authorisation is a function of whatever rights you're given, normally at the point of purchase but not necessarily. > 2) There are actually Linux DVD players which have paid for their Fraunhofer license; I don't know why you keep claiming otherwise I have never said that there are no Linux distributions that do not have a valid Fraunhofer licence. This is not about patent restrictions. We agreed that earlier in the thread, and I thought that you understood that point, but perhaps I was mistaken. Taking just one example from your list: Boxee uses libdvdcss to circumvent the CSS encryption on DVDs and thus it's possibly breaking the DMCA. Again, just because no-one is going to prosecute doesn't make it lawful. > someone citing the None of the cites you've made have supported your various changing positions.

DanBC 14y ago

> Authorization is a function of whether you paid for it. No it isn't. Authorisation is a function of whatever rights you're given, normally at the point of purchase but not necessarily. > 2) There are actually Linux DVD players which have paid for their Fraunhofer license; I don't know why you keep claiming otherwise I have never said that there are no Linux distributions that do not have a valid Fraunhofer licence. This is not about patent restrictions. We agreed that earlier in the thread, and I thought that you understood that point, but perhaps I was mistaken. Taking just one example from your list: Boxee uses libdvdcss to circumvent the CSS encryption on DVDs and thus it's possibly breaking the DMCA. Again, just because no-one is going to prosecute doesn't make it lawful. > someone citing the None of the cites you've made have supported your various changing positions.