Cooler, basically I agree with you. But, based on the Ripper case, you can also add another paragraph to that legal definition: The Doc (Ripper case) was found guilty of selling his ripping software. The buyer was also guilty. However, when The Doc published the code on the internet, or sold it on T-shirts, the code itself was considered public domain. It was therefore not illegal to purchase the T-shirt, and compile the code to rip a dvd. In the same way, when a US Senator, a few years ago, revealed a State secret on TV by mistake, reporters were allowed by law to repeat and even investigate the facts that were mistakingly revealed. It was deemed : in the public domain. With respect, I think that that's what Chad is referencing here. It very much depends on how the product (information) is initially distributed... Not an easy subject. Q

Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le hazard
S Mallarmé