The crux of all such law suits is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act provision which prohibits the circumvention of any measure used to protect copyrights...

Here is the quote that I am referring to (Question 3 in the interview -- linked above):

However, your question seems more focused on the DMCA, specifically the portions of the DMCA that govern anti-circumvention technologies, i.e. Section 1201 of Title 18. For purposes of answering this question, the term DMCA refers specifically to Section 1201. The DMCA prohibits trafficking (which includes manufacture, sale, distribution, importation, etc.) in tools (i.e., technologies, products, services, devices, etc.) that:

(a) are primarily designed to circumvent,

(b) are primarily marketed for use in circumventing, or

(c) have limited commercially significant purpose or use other than circumventing,

either one of the following:

(1) a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title [i.e., the Copyright Act] (see 18 U.S.C. Section) 1201(a)(2); or

(2) a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright holder under this title (see Section 1201(b(1)).

The first type of control above will be referred to as an access control, the second as a copy control. In addition to the restrictions on trafficking, the DMCA also prohibits actual circumvention of access controls (see Sec. 1201(a)). The DMCA s main purpose is to help protect the rights of copyright holders. However, the DMCA was also designed in part to protect and preserve the rights of people who use copyrighted works. First, the DMCA expressly states that it is not intended to affect limitations on copyright or defenses to infringement such as fair use. Second, the DMCA contains a number of exceptions and exemptions that, for example, allow in some circumstances reverse engineering, encryption research, and certain actions by libraries and certain educational institutions. Third, while the DMCA prohibits the actual circumvention of access controls, it does not prohibit the actual circumvention of copy controls. As the district court in the Elcom case noted, Congress omitted a prohibition against circumventing copy controls specifically so that users could engage in fair use (and, presumably, to use works that enter the public domain). (See U.S. v. Elcom, Ltd., 203 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1020 (N.D.Cal. 2002)). [emphasis mine]

It is interesting that we have a copyright law where copying is not prohibited but access is. It seems that current copyright law is the precise opposite of what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind.

You seems to think devices ("technology") for circumventing copying controls are not prohibited. They are. Only the doing it, is not prohibited.

Is there a problem here? Yes. Welcome to the DMCA :-(

- Seth Finkelstein [sethf.com]

So, basically, you are saying that it is okay to circumvent copy protection, but not okay to traffic in a tool whose primary purpose is to circumvent copy protection. This is one of those unusable exceptions for members of the public, who, for the most part have not the technical competence, the time, nor the interest to take advantage of it. It is an empty demonstration of benevolence.

One of the pushes that the MPAA and the RIAA are advocating is altering (crippling) a DVD RW or a CDRW to that its low level functions can not be accessed by the computer. This means moving DRM to the device itself which is not the case in most devices shipped today. The simple fact is that a binary copy (duplicate) can be made without the need of decrypting the CD (DVD).

I thought the CSS decryption was done in soft/firmware by the drive or decoder card or decoder program. Does each disk really have its own key? And if they do, how come all of the encryption is copied with the files? If the encryption was written to a hidden area of the disk, would that not make them impossible to copy without at least reading and writing the key?

It is quite likely that I do not understand the proceedure well enough, but your statement conflicts with many of the things i have read. If there were hidden keys on the disks, the pirates would all be using professional equipment. Would those devices be more expensive or just require a signature on an NDA?

Finally, if it is not possible to copy the hidden areas of a DVD, why would the MPAA be lobbying for DRM at all? If what you say is true, the MPAA already controls hardware to a sufficient extent that no copying can take place (in the absence of cracks, such as DeCSS).

I am having a hard time buying this "hidden areas" argument.

- Seth Finkelstein [sethf.com]