"We will take whatever action is appropriate," he said. "We hope the public respects our position and complies with applicable laws."No, we don't respect your position. Your position is that this number, which is not a trade secret, not copyrightable, is somehow protected under the DMCA because it could be used to circumvent copy protection.
The DMCA is a bad law. We don't like the DMCA. We don't like DRM. We merely want media that we can watch, play, and use how we see fit. So no, we don't respect your position. It is even more comical that you claim "absolutely not broken"- which is an outright lie. AACS was broken before it was ever put in a player; it was broken by very virtue of its design. From the standpoint of crypto, you are Alice, sending a message to your customer, Charlie. Charlie is not only the intended recipient, but the attacker you're protecting against- it's absurd! You give Charlie the keys to decrypt the secret message (your movie), and then hide the keys away so that (theoretically) Charlie only uses them the way you want them?
It's insane. No crypto system is designed to defend against situations where the intended recipient is also the attacker. DRM does not and cannot work for reasons of technical feasibility and economic drive.