Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I think we have a confusion of terminology here. When you say:
what do you mean by the word "rights"? I interpreted you to mean "capabilities", but you're saying that you don't mean that? What did you mean?
|
Yes, bad wording on my part. I meant: The decision seems to clearly reinforce the notion that circumvention is only a violation of the DMCA when the circumvention results in a copyright violation.
Quote:
|
What is your opinion on the "RealNetworks" case. That was a clear case of a court ruling that it is illegal to remove DRM to enable what would otherwise be "fair use" rights, such as format conversion.
|
There are a couple of significant differences in the RealNetworks case.
1. They were the producers of the decrypting software, not end users.
The creators of the software seem to be more at risk of being in violation than end users. Note no USER of the DVD copy software was sued.
2. Their software (If I understand correctly) actually breaks CSS encryption. The inept DRM stripping scripts do not, they just apply your valid license keys in ways the software maker did not intend in order to serve the needs of your specifically licensed use: reading the book.
And also, that case was from a lower court, more than a year ago. Perhaps the 5th circuit ruling shows that higher courts, having had more time to review the situation , now see things more clearly, just as the copyright office continues to add new exemptions to the circumvention provision:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
ApK
p.s. We must have some IP lawyers among us...let's hold a moot court!