Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
I wish. Unfortunately, after that, the 9th circuit court gave a different opinion.
The two contradictory court comments have been discussed here at some length.
That's why most of us tend to think it's a legal grey area at best
Personally, I think it's fair use to strip drm just to exercise the rights you already have, and that copyright law should not be used lock someone into a particular vendor.
ApK |
This ruling arose in a commercial context, between competing commercial enterprises. That's a different situation than the ordinary person is in concerning DRM avoidance, and that makes a huge difference.
It's just like Prohibition, where you could make all the booze you wanted in your own house, and drink it yourself - in your own house. But couldn't sell it to your buddy in your own house, although you could give it to him for free - in your house. But not if you gave it to him for free, but were running a restaurant in your house and sold him a meal to accompany his drink. And not if you were renting a room to someone, and providing drinks and meals as part of the deal. And you had to pay tax on the booze, no matter whether you drank it yourself or illegally sold it or gave it away.
Think about that in terms of stripping DRM. It's the New Prohibition!