[dvd-discuss] Would this consistute circumvention.

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

In helping a friend I'm preparing to accompany their daughter on some
contemporary music (for a high school talent show).  In order to do this
I needed a copy of the song to practice to.  Nothing sinister or illegal
here yet.  However, when I inserted the Ricky Martin CD into my
computer, I was astonished (a) by a cheesy and ugly player that
autolaunched and (b) that the audio tracks didn't show up in the
"Explorer" window.  Their was a README about "CD Plus" crap, but no way
to see (or copy) the actual tracks.  

So... I started up DART CD-recorder, and *it* showed me the tracks that
Window wouldn't and I could copy the one song I needed for my fair use.

Now... did I circumvent?  There wasn't any of the "requires information"
in the normal course of operation crap, but neither do the new
induced-pop CD protection schemes.

Question:  does this mean the new macrovision CD protection schemes
aren't DMCA protected? (they do not require keys or whatever) or did I
just circumvent.  Further, given that (after reading, studying and
debating the DMCA for over a year I don't know whether my actions where
legal, does this demonstrate the fundamental vaugeness of the statute
and whether a "reasonable person" (and not a legal expert) could be
reasonalby expected to know what actions the statute renders illegal.

.002

PS.  You know, if they just added "for purpose of copyright
infringement" to the "primary designed to circumvent" language the DMCA
would be alot less dangerous.