Naturally, the "Joint Creators and Copyright Owners"'s response stated quite the opposite
In reviewing the transcript from the May 17 hearing, we identified two primary issues posed by the Office that specifically relate to this question. First, the Office asked EFF to explain why it is necessary to hack ebook readers to accomplish tasks more suited for multi-purpose computing devices, especially considering that hacking an ebook reader potentially exposes literary works resident on the device to unauthorized access and infringement. See May 17 Transcript at 116-117 (statement of Mr. Carson). Second, the Office asked EFF to address why an exemption is necessary given that some ebook readers already enable many of the functions (such as reading email) that EFF claims hacking will enable on more limited ebook readers. See id. at 118-119 (statement of Ms. Pallante).
EFF's July 2 response fails to address either of these questions. Instead, EFF merely lists a number of functions it claims some consumers wish to enable on ebook readers, all of which can be accomplished on other devices. Not only can all these tasks be accomplished on other devices, they can be accomplished on other devices without circumvention. In addition, EFF completely ignores the increased risk of infringement that the proposed hacking would inevitably create, and fails to offer any explanation of why that risk should be deprecated in favor of allowing some consumers to circumvent in order to purchase ebook readers rather than multi-purpose devices, or to purchase single-purpose ebook readers rather than multi-purpose ebook readers.
As we have stated in our prior filings and during the hearings, EFF has failed to establish that any exemption similar to proposal #5 should be granted. For all of those previously referenced reasons as well as the reasons stated herein, the Register should reject EFF's request for an exemption applicable to ebook readers.
In other words, it's just an e-book reader, dummy, no need to add more features to it...