[frabjous]

As a non-moderator, let me agree with Nate’s point about the way kamm expresses his points. Bold does come across to me as a form of shouting. I feel as if kamm is venting his frustration at the wrong people. Let’s reserve that level of ire for the DRMers, not for people who just express skepticism about our legal system’s ability to see reason.

Unfortunately, the red part of the post kamm quoted really only says it’s legal to remove DRM preventing TTS when no-TTS-enabled version of the book is being sold. It’s pretty explicit on that.

Personally, I don’t care what’s legal. I only care what’s moral. I don’t buy products from those who ship their products with DRM, so I’ve never had to remove it. But I were a visually impaired person who wanted to use TTS, I’d feel absolutely no guilt about stripping DRM off the cheapest ebook version to use TTS with it, whether legal or not. The thought of a publisher who would charge a visually impaired person more for a TTS-enabled version is simply loathsome.