|
The argument would probably be something like:
The sole purpose of DRM removal tool A is to enable an individual to use a copyrighted work in a manner requiring authorization from the rights holder without obtaining that authorization. That is not an acceptable "substantial commercial purpose or use". The use/purpose itself must be legal.
In the Ntendo case(the one that started this thread), the challenged technology was defended because it enabled an Nintendo console to play mp3, games, movies etc which did not require further authority from the rights holder. The Court specifically emphasized that.
|