They are stretching the bounds of the ruling a bit.
Here's TELEREAD's take:
http://www.teleread.com/drm/judge-co...-infringement/
Quote:
Cote dismissed the charge of contributory infringement, ruling that the publishers didn’t have a case because they couldn’t point to any specific example of actual infringement—which is to say, cracking the DRM and then uploading the copies to peer-to-peer or even just sharing them with friends, rather than just cracking the DRM for the fair use purposes of backing media up or transferring it to other devices. There has to be an actual infringement for Abbey House to be contributing to for it to be liable for contributory infringement.
|
Left open is what the law might say if they had actually identified an Abbey House customer who had followed the suggestion and was willing to testify they stripped DRM solely because of it.