It does not criminalize a particular type of copyright infringement.
6. Home Piracy Machine is an instrumentality for acting contrary to
the lawful prerogatives of the Holder under copyright law. (DMCA:
"without the authority of the copyright holder".)
Almost. The DMCA also prohibits uses which don't violate copyright
law. Even if DeCSS had no effect on the ability of people to copy
works, it would still be illegal under the DMCA. So it isn't limited
to the "lawful prerogatives of the Holder under copyright law." It's
whatever the heck the Holder wishes about any use of her work, be it
fair use or not.
If the DMCA only prevented devices which aid in copyright
violations, it would be largely redundant, as we already have the
concept of contributory copyright infringement. DeCSS is indeed
contributing to copyright infringement, but the MPAA does not need to
show it (they also don't have to show that distributors of it
intend/benefit from/etc copyright violations). Kaplan made it clear
that the defendants were not being sued under Copyright, as that's
crucial to his reading of the DMCA.
But I agree completely with the rest of your comment, and have been
thinking since day one that someone should make a movie (dialog
including a spoken version of efdtt.c of course) encrypted in CSS in
order to provide "significant" other uses for it. Unfortunately, I
suspect that this would be seen for what it is: an attempt to get
around the law, and not looked upon favorably... It would, however,
further demonstrate the ridiculousness of the DMCA.
[ Parent ]