[Doug Pardee]

The news report is misleading.

The decision in question was about bypassing the use of a dongle in order to continue to use an unencrypted computer program. The court found that the dongle was not designed to protect against copying, and furthermore that no copying was performed. Therefore, the court ruled that the DMCA's prohibition against bypassing copy-protection technology in order to illegally copy copyrighted material didn't apply to that case.

The court also found that no evidence was presented that the defendant was even responsible for bypassing the dongle.

Rulings by the 5th Circuit Court only cover Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Unless you're in one of those states, their rulings don't directly affect you anyway.

Here is the ruling, from "the horse's mouth": http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...21-CV0.wpd.pdf

In particular (emphasis added):

MGE has not shown that bypassing its dongle infringes a right protected by the Copyright Act. MGE’s dongle merely prevents initial access to the software. If no dongle is detected, the software program will not complete the start-up process. However, even if a dongle is present, it does not prevent the literal code or text of MGE’s copyrighted computer software from being freely read and copied once that access is obtained; there is no encryption or other form of protection on the software itself to prevent copyright violations. Because the dongle does not protect against copyright violations, the mere fact that the dongle itself is circumvented does not give rise to a circumvention violation within the meaning of the DMCA.

MGE cites no evidence that a GE/PMI employee or representative was responsible for altering the Pacret and Muguet software such that a dongle was not required to use the software. Without proving GE/PMI actually circumvented the technology (as opposed to using technology already circumvented), MGE does not present a valid DMCA claim.

Because the DMCA does not apply to mere use of a copyrighted work, and because MGE has not shown that GE/PMI circumvented MGE’s software protections in violation of the DMCA, the district court did not err in granting GE/PMI’s Rule 50(a) motion dismissing MGE’s DMCA claim.

I don't see how you can read into that ruling that you now have a right to break DRM on e-books for "format shifting" (the usual legal term is space shifting).