Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotech_Master
For whatever reason, apparently the publishers didn't see fit to press a DMCA claim. It's a little puzzling, really. All these years, the DMCA's anti-circumvention has been the bogeyman we tell stories about around our blog and forum campfires. It's illegal to crack DRM for any purpose, even if you want to make fair use. It's illegal even to tell people how to crack DRM.
|
Except, of course, it's not. I cited the relevant section of Title 17, which has several excemptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotech_Master
Sure you've got your interoperability provisions, but the precedents are pretty murky overall, with one judge outright saying that if Congress had meant fair use to be a defense against the DMCA, they would have outright said so. The overall effect is to scare people into not even trying to take the claims to court.
Which brings us back to wondering why the publishers didn't throw in an antii-circumvention charge, too. It's a puzzler. And it's also the reason why this ruling may not amount to much in the end. I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that if someone tries to use this ruling as precedent, all the opposition needs to do is point out that the ruling didn't consider the law in question at all. |
I expect the reason nobody has included an anti-circumvention claim is that their lawyers tell them not to, because they wouldn't likely win. There being exemptions for interoperability, and all.