Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
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.
|
I see what you mean now. Thank you for the clarification.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I would fully accept this to be true when it comes to removing DRM from a book that you have legitimately purchased. It seems to me, however, that for a library book, the situation is completely different. You have not purchased the book; it's the library's book. I think there's a very good case to be made that you are violating the provisions of the DMCA by removing the one thing that makes a library book a library book: namely, the expiration.
As you very rightly say, there are numerous exemptions to the DMCA. You are allowed to remove DRM if you are a disabled person and the DRM prevents you from accessing the book, if you're an educational establishments, for purposes of critical review, and much more. An important point, though (or so it seems to me) is that there is no "personal use" exemption. If there was intended to be such an exemption, don't you think it would have been explicitly listed in the list of exemptions?