While I agree with all of these points, it's only fair to also mention that the MPAA has a legitimate reason to be afraid of DeCSS being used to "rip" DVDs to disk, especially since many of the places it was mirrored were advertising just that capability. While this may not represent a great threat right now due to bandwidth and storage limitations, how far down the road do we have to look before the average netizen does have that capacity?

That said, I'm really just mentioning this as devil's advocate. It's the sort of reasoning the MPAA will use to argue that DeCSS was made to copy DVDs. I don't think the best way to combat that is to say that there are other ways to pirate DVDs or to claim that CSS is not a copy-protection scheme. We don't need a list of arguments. We need only one: "The primary purpose of DeCSS is to enable playback of DVDs on open-source DVD player software."

That gets right to the core of their argument. I'm no lawyer, but if the "primary purpose" of DeCSS is NOT the copying of DVDs, then the DMCA shouldn't apply, right?