Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
Looks to me like this case was about reverse engineering software and DMCA circumvention tools. They probably waived the argument about "fair use" because it didn't really have anything to do with the case. The ruling does talk about Section 117, but says that it doesn't apply because of the nature of the use (reverse engineering). I don't see where the question of ownership vs license, or whether EULA trumps fair use had anything to do with the ruling.
|
which is important because
Quote:
|
No, if you break the Kindle's ToS then it is a contract dispute between you and Amazon. If copyright says what you did is fair use, but the ToS says you can't do it, then you're not violating copyright law. That is not an example of copyright infringement.
|
So your argument is that ownership confers rights exceeding those of a licensee unless violating the terms of the license revokes your ownership in which case your rights are limited to those described in the license. I'll quit trying to find a logical train in your arguments. On a related note, if I understood your argument your argument would totally be correctly understood.
It's safe to say that you disagree with our (and the
EFF's) reading of decisions which we perceive to have the effect of stripping consumers' rights and that we're all on great, legally sound footing when it comes to our digital devices. I feel so much better!
Since this dead horse flogging is pointless I'm officially out. I'll send the EFF a nice little email explaining they can rest easy re: DRM/DMCA/eBooks. They're gonna be thrilled!