View Single Post
Old 12-11-2014, 10:17 AM   #7
fjtorres
Grand Sorcerer
fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by rixte View Post
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."
She isn't saying that DRM stripping is legal, just pointing out that the infringement lies in the uploading.

She is sidestepping the whole DMCA/stripping issues.
In other words, if no uploading occurred, there is no infrigement. Whether the file started DRM-free or not.

She is very narrowly working her way back down the infringement process and stopping at the upload stage: no proof of upload, no case.

There is less here than meets the eye.
She isn't making precedent, just saying the plaintiffs didn't make a case.
fjtorres is offline   Reply With Quote