Ah yes this is true and I'd forgotten that, but it was still true for broadcast tv and what is a stream of data if not a broadcast?

And it seems fair to ask look but don't copy, except all a computer does is copy bits all day from one place to another, its just what they do. But I do believe that those systems currently send those bytes without any requirement on my end - which is what I was getting at. There may be an implied requirement but there is not an explicit one that I can see - no login required for Hulu or Youtube content. So while you're right there may be a condition on those bytes, but to my eye the condition seems to be an internet connection. To which you'll say, but the video has a format and that format has a meaning and so we must re-implement macro-vission for the digital age!

And to that I say NO - don't go back to the bad old days. I've got more interesting things to do with that data which I shouldn't have to purchase it 12 times because you can't see past your nose.

You've got a leg up on me here because I personally avoid this crap like the plague usually... But... How about this, the constitution requires that copyright be for a *limited* amount of time, I could argue they are preventing this. Though thats a weak argument I'm out of time at work and my internet is busted at home thanks to Comcast's crappy service.

Maybe it is a classic is/ought problem as you put it, but my comment wasn't directed at your factual grandparent comment. A discussion can have more then just fact but also opinions.

In your post you said: this is an unsettled area of law. Since it would be a rather boring discussion without opinion (especially here) I think we can move passed that point eh? Now onto something more interesting...

To which I would beg the question, why not? The makers of rtmpDump don't seem any different then those of the vcr or camera to me. I don't believe there is any signed agreement by the site and the user to only use the Adobe certified player software and so long as they send the bytes to me they can have no complaint on how I use (display) those bits on my end (as a user). Now with the advent of the DMCA - an atrocious law that should be declared in part or whole as unconstitutional - there is a legal ground for attacking the neo-vcr and to that I say bullocks. With no contractual agreement between any of the parties why the fed. gov. need to get involved with everything? I'm sure the ass hats would like to come after me for my DTV capture devices too, bugger them. I shouldn't even have to utter the words fair use. I welcome the diamond age.

That is exactly what the DMCA is for, the creation of the evil bit - see HDTV's magic flag bullshit, or in this case, a stream flag or whatever. Its all really stupid because ultimately displayable content is copyable and thats what they refuse to realize.

In some games you can turn it off, others you can't, but in this game it doesn't matter because there isn't any. Check out these images from the game. I searched, I couldn't find any that had any blood even. If we were talking about COD5 which has lots and lots of blood plus blown of arms and legs and torsos even - you would have something to talk about, but this game doesn't even have any that I can see.

I think you need to read the news more, say this story about the mafia guys.

I think its because its the simplest option for both the developer and for the user. Consider that this packaging process can be automated, requires no special installer program, and is pretty user friendly. That makes it the shortest path for both a developer and for the user, win win.

Not to rain on your parade here, because I really would love a sweet mesh network, but our phones and PDAs are already used by the gov to track us - remember that the FBI can turn on the voice mic (and for sure the GPS and maybe the camera by now) of any phone - even if that phone doesn't appear to be on.