Quote:
Originally Posted by ZodWallop
I was looking at Abbey House Media v. Apple Inc. (Link is to a Gizmodo article, but from there you can directly read the ruling if interested.)
Removal of DRM in itself (or telling people how to do so) wasn't found to be illegal. Posting those de-DRMed copies for others to download would be illegal. |
It's great to see a judge employ a common sense approach.
Quote:
|
With regard to contributory infringement, Judge Cote noted that neither publisher alleged that Abbey House actually knew of any infringement that followed the stripping of DRM from ebooks (indeed, the publishers failed to identify any specific instance of direct infringement at all). Since contributory infringement requires both knowledge of direct infringement and material assistance to the direct infringer, she dismissed this claim.
|
That said, I don't believe there's actually been a case regarding removal of DRM from ebooks for personal use so it's still up in the air how the "No DRM circumvention" of the DMCA will stand. The above is good precedent, though, but it's better to have exemptions for fair use written into law (or really, just get rid of DMCA section 1201 since it just hampers consumers who purchase legally while being quite ineffective at preventing piracy).