|
[QUOTE=wallcraft;1243616]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. [QUOTE]
I've never been involved with writing a statute, but I've read hundreds if not thousands of them, and they all tend to be written obscurely, at least from a layman's point of view. There are mechanical reasons for that, having to do with the interactions of various provisions of a statute, and it is likely that being explicit would have mucked up the way that the other provisions interact.
Plus, if these things were explicit, you would not need to hire a lawyer. Think of how terrible that would be! Hordes of unemployed lawyers would roam the streets, offering legal interpretations for food, begging from people using interminable arguments and citing authorities to prove that you must give them money, running for even more offices than they do already, and creating controversies in the public way. It is better tokeep them off the streets.
|