> (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
> (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
> (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
> (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
I think you can make a valid argument against me with this. DCMA is a hell of a law.
To my defense, I would argue that this speaks to production and sale of circumvention tools, and does not actually criminalize the execution of this code. But I weaken my original position about outlawing software. Thank you.
