Erg ... As far as Linux is concerned, I get it. The player requires the libdvdcss library. However, I was able to install it on my Windows machines also, and it plays DVDs no problem. If it is only a player, and I haven't installed any decoders in Windows, then how is it doing it without installing a codec itself?

P.S. I've been monitoring this thread over the last few days, and have learned new things about DVD technology. I already knew that the DVD codec was licensed stringently, but I did not realize it's apparently illegal to play DVDs on Linux in America.

... Interesting ...

Its only illegal due to the DMCA and that some DVD's are encrypted with CSS. If you can play DVD's, either they are not encrypted (and thus no laws broke), or you have a decryption library installed to crack it (thus illegal, most DVD's are encrypted), or you have some legal codec laying around inside your computer somewhere.

I think Australia is getting a version of the DMCA soonish from that horrible freetrade agreement stuff (damn Howard) a while ago. Not sure when its getting implemented.

Actually I just googled and it seems Jan 1 2007 was the deadline for the aussie DMCA, haven't heard anything new about it, not sure that it applies to libdvdcss.

Ripping tracks from a CD for use on an iPod is format shifting, but playing dvds is 'circumventing DRM' so the legality is probably different. It does appear that region protection isn't protected under the new copyright stuff.

I've only browsed through this thread, but what I find kind of unfair is the notion that if I have a computer that came with a DVD drive and software to (presumably legally) decode and play DVD's on Windows, it is still illegal to use libdvdcss in Linux to play them on the same DVD drive. I already paid a licensing fee at purchase time and there won't be simultaneous use of the decoding libraries. The Linux library is just then a surrogate for the Windows library I paid for and would otherwise be using. So why the heck should it be illegal for me to play the DVD?

This is another example of the worrying trend of making it illegal to use something that can be used ethically for no other reason than because it can also be used un-ethically. Not right, IMO.

The way this whole thing *ought* to work IMO is that the companies that encode the DVD's pay a per-disc license fee for the right to encode using that technology but use of the decoding technology by the end-user is free-of-charge.

I was just checking the website of the Norwegian lawyers association. The question the DVD-Jon case asked was: "To what degree can you bypass a technical block that hinders your access to data or information you have judicial rights to?" (my attempt at translating their Norwegian question: "I hvilken grad er det tillatt å tilsidesette en teknisk sperre som hindrer adgang til data eller informasjon du har rettslig tilgang til?").

The law, I suspect in most of Europe is that, as long as you don't re-distribute the decoded result, you're ok.

So the US law seems to be stricter. Can any of you US LQ'ers confirm that people who simply play a legally bought DVD on Linux (using e.g. libdvdcss2) has been convicted?

This is all assuming that someone who found the software on your computer did this via a legal way. I'm sure that if a police agency has obtained the right to search your computer in order to find the lib in question then you have committed some crime greater then just playing dvd's illegally on your computer.

This is all very tin foil hat paranoia really. Any free world government that I know of has no right to clandestinely scan random computers for illegal software as they would be breaking a even greater law then you are for watching a DVD. This is assuming that they even know what they were looking at or even cared to look for it.

So yes in the strict sense of the law its illegal but seriously unless your a drug dealer using your computer to comit your transactions or you were a kiddie porn producer I think that your pretty safe from anyone ever finding anything on your computer thats considered illegal. You have to remember that these laws were created by paranoid studios in search of a means to keep there movies so called safe. Thus because of there tin foil hat attitudes we have these laws witch are in essence unenforceable without breaking greater laws that are guaranteed under the constitution of the united states ( for the US that is ).

People today have strange ideas about what the law protects and thats evident with the DMCA here is a group of people who feel that they do not need to follow or abide by the same laws that every other citizen is bound to. Sorry to break there bubble but your delusional god complex is not going to happen. No amount of money or campaigning is going to change the basic rights guaranteed under the basic rights of the individual as they are bound to the same laws as you are. business want you to think that they have some sort of special laws that they belong to that you are not right to but thats the lie that they spew forth from there little closed bleach colored world that they feel safe in to keep the masses out.

Patriot Acts. 'Nuff said.

Not sure who you are criticizing here, but the DMCA (IMO) is both regressive in that it is trying to roll back the technological clock and fascist in that it is trying to elevate corporations above individuals.

Again I'm not sure who the target is, but I will point out that in the US right now the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments have already been seriously abridged in the name of national security.

Um-Norton doesn't help any. It scans your computer for files it doesn't like. And as far as the Patriot acts-well ya, there are good things about that, and bad.