[mythtv-users] Blu-Ray player? Myth capable?

[jedi at mishnet.org]

> Brian Wood wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 2008, at 10:26 AM, jedi at mishnet.org wrote:
>>
>>
>>>    The illegal part is distributing the player. More precisely, it's
>>> distributing the "encryption cracking" part. Some DVDs don't have this
>>> legal issue.
>>>
>>
>> The "illegal" part is circumventing the copy protection feature.
>> Distributing software that can do that is less clear IMHO, the
>> difference between free speech and distributing "illegal" software is
>> not obvious. For example, I believe distributing the source code for
>> DeCSS is different from distributing a binary, but this is not a legal
>> issues forum.
>>
>>
>>>    So when are they arresting the SlySoft guys?
>>>
>>>    DVD Jon has a US company. He should also be an obvious target.
>>>
>>>    Who's gotten sued or arrested for putting their DVDs on their ipod?
>>>
>>
>> There does not have to be an arrest or a lawsuit for something to be
>> "illegal", or a violation of a license. The fact is that you agreed to
>> something when you purchased (or at least used, or maybe just opened)
>> a movie package, and technically you are bound by that agreement.

This is they part that is very, very, VERY thin.

There is no opportunity to review the "contract" prior to
sale. Once you are in a position to review it (wherever this
mythical license is), you will be no longer allowed to reject
it since you won't be able to return the product.

There are limitations on what you can do with a purchased
copy of something. This is because of how various things
are defined. Extra licensing isn't required to create this
effect. Media companies are conflating the two and trying to
add to the confusion for their own ends.

Companies routinely abuse the general understanding of the
law (extreme ignorance) in order to subject consumers to
legal language that's illegal or unenforceable.

[deletia]

Plus... that horse left the barn a long time ago.