[stonetools]

There is no law, nor moral imperative, to only suggest those actions that one is certain are entirely legal.

That's MY moral imperative. You are free to take another approach.

Gay sex was illegal in a lot of places in the US, not long ago. My religion has been banned in various locations; a lot of my religious practices are occasionally banned by some cities. Some laws are immoral and oppressive, and part of the process of changing them is breaking them--because if nobody breaks them, the people who want the laws to stay claim that there's no demand for them to change.

I think its creepy to equate this anti-DRM stuff with the struggle against civil rights or the people who marched and went to jail over gay rights or religious freedom. That's taking this thing WAAAAAAAAAAY out of proportion-and it does a disservice to those who marched and went to jail and bled, IMO.

Those who advocate DRM-cracking should certainly inform people that it's legally iffy. However, plenty of us are willing to break laws in ways that don't cause any damage.

I am for fully informed consent-and that should start by informing those who ask that there are entirely legal ways to backup, archive, and share files. These ways don't cover all eventualities, and if the person persists, then they should be informed of the legally dubious methods-and of the possible consequences. Unfortunately, on Mobile Reads, it is the legally dubious way -AND ONLY THAT WAY-that is advocated as the proper way to accomplish these tasks. The impression given is that the law can, must, and indeed should be broken with impunity and that Mobile Reads is the forum to come to find how it can be done. I don't think that's a healthy impression to create.