[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes: > Your interpretation would make the access-circumvention provision > almost useless: it would mean it only mattered when preventing access > to illegally copied works. Which, hey, is a reasonable law. Neat.
No, it would also mean that you can't make an access-circumvention for a *copy protection* scheme. The point is that CSS isn't a copyprotection scheme, not at all.
