Quote:
Originally Posted by Killing Floor
I don't have to show you a ruling. I showed you a link to the DMCA. "VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
The act of decrypting an encrypted copyrighted work is, on it's face illegal. I never said it trumped Fair Use. That will probably have to be decided by the Supreme Court. I'm just pointing out the law on it. It says what it says.
|
Wait! Wait! Wait!
Yes, it says what it says, but you're not saying all it says.
I see this has gone back and forth a few times, so I hope I'm not getting to the horse beating stage, but I just took a closer look at the page you so helpfully referenced (Sec. 1201):
Quote:
(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).
|
It's written in stinking legalese, but it
includes exceptions! One of the itemized considerations in section (C) is, "
(v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate."
IANAL and we all know lawyers write laws to make them incomprehensible to the masses, but this stinking thing looks like it's riddled with loopholes. If the enforcer is evil, then sure, he can say you broke this tyrannical, corrupt law by enabling yourself to read a book you bought.
But I believe a very strong case will be made at some point that if you bought a book (or someone bought it as a gift in the OP's case) and the DRM
adversely affects you and you strip the DRM so you can
make noninfringing uses (i.e. so you
can read it), then you did not break this law.
And I expect they will use the very words of the DMCA to make the case.