Universal City v. Reimerdes 2. Does DeCSS have both speech and non-speech elements? Speech only: Since a *recipe* is not the same as *baking* the cake, DeCSS.c is speech. 3. Does the dissemination of DeCSS have both speech and non-speech elements? Only speech ---'dissemination' is *publishing*, which is as protected a behavior as original speech. 4. Does the use of DeCSS to decrypt an encrypted DVD have both speech and non-speech elements? Using some code to build a tool to watch a movie is not speech. Neither is it a crime. It is software engineering, for lack of better term. Building your own phonograph is not a crime, neither is telling people how to do it, or even selling them the parts. An Actor who uses a blueprint to machine a full-auto sear is a Machinist, not an Author or Publisher. An Actor who uses a recipe to synthesize meth is a Chemist, not an Author or Publisher. An Actor who performs a script is a Performer, not an Author or Publisher. Whether that physical *action* (machining, synthesis, or performance) is legal or not depends on the *licenses* which the Actor has. The same legal caveat goes for duplicating DVD files under Fair Use ---if you've licensed the content you can make a backup, or transfer it to other media--- which again has *nothing* to do with DeCSS. DeCSS has nothing to do with copyright infringement at all. It does not help or speed up copying DVD files, whether legal (under fair use etc.) or illegally done. DeCSS has to do with the *legal playback* of *legally owned media*. Illegally copied DVDs can be played back on licensed players and on players that use DeCSS. To copy a DVD you don't need DeCSS. If you can't get this through your thick fucking judicial heads, I'd suggest finding substitutes who can. Apoplectic with metaphors, John Q. Coder
