Quote:
Originally Posted by taustin
That would be a case against the end user who actually removes the DRM, which would be irrelevant as a counterclaim in this case. Helping people remove the DRM is contributory infringement, which is what they claimed here (and lost).
|
No. The copyright issues and DRM-removal are separate issues. It's illegal under the DMCA to tell someone how to remove DRM. What this judge effectively said is that telling someone how to remove DRM is NOT contributory infringement, and that they'll have to use the DMCA if they want to stop it. Whether they would go that route seems doubtful. A law that's on the books but untested is much more useful to the publishing houses than one that's been tossed by the courts.
As for the argument that DMCA doesn't permit exceptions to the regulation against DRM removal, I tend to agree with taustin: yes, the courts may have argued that there's no "fair use provision", but there IS a provision—it is not a matter of "fair use".