[Harmon]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Wikipedia puts it well.

"The phrase is derived from the medieval Latin legal principle exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis ("the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted"), a concept first proposed by Cicero in his defence of Lucius Cornelius Balbus.[1] This means a stated exception implies the existence of a rule to which it is the exception. The second part of Cicero's phrase, "in casibus non exceptis" or "in cases not excepted," is almost always missing from modern uses of the statement that "the exception proves the rule," which may contribute to frequent confusion and misuse of the phrase."

Thanks - I didn't know that.

And so the fact the the Librarian of Congress has given permission for personal use of DRM removal software for ebooks in a certain case demonstrates that there is a general prohibition on doing so.

No, it doesn't. For one thing, consider the second part of Cicero's phrase.

But even were that not the case, that's merely an argument, and often fails. For example, in the recent Obamacare decision, it turned out that the individual mandate was a "tax" for purposes of assessing its Constitutionality, but not a "tax" for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. (In essence, Justice Roberts applied the second part of Cicero's phrase.)

But what you are really trying to do is draw a negative implication from an administrative ruling. Most of the time, if you actually read the ruling, you find that the administrator is very careful to make it clear that such implications not be drawn, because they work both ways, sometimes with unforeseen consequences.

Since two of the US appeal courts have given different rulings on the matter, it's plainly not clear enough, and it may be that the US Supreme Court will eventually decide the matter.

Simply put: No. None of the courts have given rulings on the matter we are talking about here. None. Nada.

Anything you read in a court opinion which appears to you to address the matter either doesn't, or if it does, does so merely as dicta, which has no legal standing. If I were writing a brief to a court on the question we are talking about here, and tried to tell the court that any of these cases bear on our question, the judge would think I wasn't a very good lawyer. There are some very few judges whose opinions are so respected or important that other judges will pay attention to their dicta (for example, Judge Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals) but none of the judges on these cases.

And if you think about it, you will realize that no court will ever address the question. There is simply nothing to be gained by a publisher bringing a lawsuit against an individual for stripping DRM from an ebook which the individual has legally acquired, and where the only use of the stripped file is personal use.

But there is a hell of a lot for the publishers to lose. Right now, they have everybody buffaloed into believing that it's illegal to strip DRM, anywhere, any time. Why would they risk getting a court opinion to the contrary?

Or, perhaps, the law will be repealed.... or the horse will sing.

A singing horse probably violates the Mr. Ed clause. Particularly if it sings Happy Birthday.