Quote:
Originally Posted by wallcraft
They had a choice about how to define fair use protections. For example, the act could have explicitly said that stripping DRM for personal use was ok. Actually, it does say that all fair use provisions still apply but this is contradicted by its practical provisions. The Librarian of Congress has the option, every three years, to make explicit fair use exceptions to the anti-circumvention provisions (e.g. for format shifting), but has never some close to doing so.
|
The fact that they have not come close to legitimising the practice perhaps speaks to the intentions of the legislators. If that were assumed (pure conjecture on my part) then it would not be wise to read too much into court decisions to the contrary - since it may be the legislators intentions to close any loop-holes revealed by such decisions.
Of course the opposite could also prove true: they may decide that the current form of DRM is effectively useless (which is merely fact) and so there is no good reason to try and prevent its removal. ... But I wouldn't hold my breath on this one. The law, like my OP, attempts to deal with DRM as a concept rather than a specific instance, and the purpose of DRM is still desirable (by people wanting to protect their rights). So they won't want to weaken provisions too generally in case any more effective solutions arise.