[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

No it was not a rhetorical trick. I'm not the one who uses "rhetorical tricks", legal semantics, etc. to make their points here.

If you say so.

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

You have lost me here. First, what is debatable here? There is only one exemption to DMCA that allows breaking DRM on an e-book: that is to allow the read-aloud function of a reader work but only if there is a copy already available that would permit that. It's a very narrow exemption.

Read the wording of those exemptions (#6 here). A lawyer would have a field day with it. Since we are not discussing moral quandaries (morally, I'm perfectly in the clear - it's the legal niceties that you demand be followed to the letter), the fact that the exemptions are vague enough to leave room for interpretation validate my point that (and I quote myself) "this is FAR from being the binary issue you make it out to be". That you refuse to even consider this debatable shows that I'm probably wasting my time (but that's alright - it's Saturday and I'm enjoying this too much ).

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Your point 1-4 are coming at me from out of left field and don't mean a thing to me.

Yes, isn't it irritating when someone responds to points without quoting them? Then one has to go back and match things up. I agree that it is difficult to understand point-wise rebuttals in that case. Allow me to illustrate a better way:

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

1. What the heck is Rhur (besides someplace in Germany)?

"Ruhr?" (not Rhur) is a personal ejaculation of dismay (not found in dictionaries) at having to explain the relevance of that point. My apologies. I should have said "WTF?" or at least added a smiley. Still, I'll go ahead and explain it anyway. You wrote "so what?", implying the matter is irrelevant. I maintain that it's not (when considered in conjunction with other matters, which leads us to point #2).

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

2. What isn't? What about why we have DMCA is making what clear?

*sigh* Again, I shouldn't have adopted your method of point-wise replies. Here's the conversation in sequence:
Me: "2. I've not distributed the book to anyone else."
You: "2. Immaterial."
Me: "2. No it isn't. The reason why we have a DMCA in the first place should make it clear why. "

If this feels like a non-sequitur to you, I give up.

The DMCA was a response to (the perceived) massive distribution of pirated materials for profit. It is FAR from immaterial that I do not distribute DRM-stripped books. This fact alone changes the (alleged) violation from a criminal matter to a civil matter. In conjunction with #1, it establishes a lack of violation of the spirit of the DMCA. Of course, these are all legal niceties and I grow confused at the rapid shifts between legal-only and moral-only concerns in such conversations. Which one am I being accused at this point in time?

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

3. What advice are you referring to?

Uh, the advice under #3 of your list that I was replying to. "Do so at your own risk." Why was that confusing?

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

4. Legal semantic abuse such as this is why I use the term lawbreaking, not crime, etc.

*sigh* Breaking the law is a crime (or misdemeanor, or infraction or ...). The DMCA says that without distribution, the matter is merely a contractual disagreement between buyer and seller and there are only civil remedies in that case. The only criminal offense is described in this section. Either way, as I explained previously, the idea that breaking DRM of a purchased book without distribution is a violation of the DMCA has by no means been legally proved, especially in light of the current exemptions.

Until then, either term: crime (which is flatly wrong) and lawbreaking (which is merely "alleged" at the moment as I've explained in great detail by now) is unworthy of "exoneration" (your word).

And I find your statement (#4 that I quoted above) deeply amusing because you're upset about legal semantics when it comes to lawbreaking. For a law as badly written as the DMCA, legal semantics are the norm rather than the exception. In fact, to belabor the point, the DMCA is the very personification of "legal semantic abuse" .

We've already established that there is nothing morally wrong about breaking DRM for personal private use. We're discussing here the legal aspects of the matter. Legal semantics are very much in play here.

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Maybe you don't like my use of rationalizing but that's exactly what it is. Don't like me saying it? Don't do it.

I'll take the bonus choice - demonstrate its incorrectness. In fact, that appears to have been done several times in this thread by now.

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Your analogy to DMCA and hazardous materials regulations goes beyond comparing apples and oranges. It wanders all over the place with no relevance.

Or, you just missed its relevance and its purpose (both of which were clearly, even verbosely explained within - it doesn't seem like their simple reiteration will aid in clarity). Maybe you wanted to miss it since it was meant as an antidote to your constant deification of "the seller's terms", which don't mean much when it comes to most other items in a common household.

As Ken noted:
"Generally, a seller's control over what they sell and the conditions of sale end once payment has been made and accepted."

Another example: most complex products come with a "no reverse engineering" clause. The intent and limitations of this clause are both well-understood. Unfortunately, people deliberately refuse to understand these when it comes to media (of all kinds). Bewildering.