Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotech_Master
Syndney's Mom, the section of the opinion I quoted seems pretty clear on what the DMCA is supposed to allow, per this judge: it is supposed to allow fair use. Just breaking the DRM isn't supposed to trigger the anti-circumvention restriction.
|
I quoted this from the case: [DMCA specifically prohibits] "decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner.” Id. § 1201(a)(3)(A).
Since this was just a key, it didn't disable or remove any protection. It appears this involved somekind of computer repair, and the key was needed to run the software already on the machine. No one was pirating the software, they were providing the key to legitimate owners. Unfortunately, DMCA does target decryption of an encryped work, which I think most of the current tools (mobidedrm and the inepts) do.
It is a subtle point, but that is what copyright law is all about. Someone with more knowledge about computers would probably understand the case better than I - there is a link to a pdf of the case, which is what I was quoting from.
However, the argument, that I used decryption software to remove encryption so I could read the book I bought and paid for on my Sony Reader rather than my Kindle, is not something Amazon wants to get into. There would be antitrust issues. And the intent of the DMCA (although intent doesn't always save the day) was to protect copyright holders, not Amazon.
I am not a copyright attorney nor a computer expert, but I am not rejoicing yet. I have always not been concerned because of the lack of damage to the copyright holder. But this could be a beginning.