I can wait if you can keep me updated please - i recently asked another question on this site and didn't receive a reply or answer for over 3 weeks so I'm happy to wait providing we aren't left for 3 weeks again.
Thanks for your reply.
Do the stipulations set out in circumvention section of the CDP define the terms mentioned?
Does a 'product primarily designed or adapted to circumvent technological measures' include a PC or similar multitasking computing device with a browser or software loaded onto it that simply allows an end user to access to web links?
Does a 'service designed to circumvent effective technological measures' mean an actual technological service such as a technician fitting a satellite dish to a property or could it mean a verbal or advice service of sorts where an individual would simply tell others where to find links to online streaming content?
Also, If promoting, advertising or marketing a product or service that is capable of circumvention is illegal - Is it then also illegal for a person or business to openly reference the law or rulings that state protection for end users when viewing content online? - is it advertising and promoting if no actual marketing is used but the law and legislation is made available?
Thank you again for your time and replies.
I have one last question that i would like clarification / your opinion on and then I will be totally satisfied.
Seeing as though it is lawful for end users to view content online without copyright holders permission - is simple verbal or written advice from anyone (a person or a business) on how / where to view content still classed as facilitating circumvention? Because in theory, we are dealing with 2 kinds of circumvention - unlawful circumvention (such as illegal satellite systems or card sharing technology) and lawful circumvention (simply viewing content online without downloading or copying anything).
I know you said in your opinion verbal advice isn't a service that facilitates circumvention anyway - but if it was, would it be unlawful to advise people on how they can lawfully circumvent, as clarified the by CJEU?