Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
They are stretching the bounds of the ruling a bit.
Here's TELEREAD's take:
http://www.teleread.com/drm/judge-co...-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. |
The judge clearly stated that wouldn't have been a problem. It only would have become one if they had then uploaded those copies (and Abbey House knew that they would):
"The act of infringement underlying the inducement claim, however, is not the removal of DRM protection. Rather, it is the copying and distribution of ebooks to others after such protection has been removed. The counterclaims do not allege that Abbey House encouraged such infringing acts."