The general principle of removing DRM is forbidden, at least in the US, which is presumably why DRM removal tools are distributed through the same shady web sources as pirated content.
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
Legal grey area.
> But if you are making a copy so that you may use a copyrighted product in case the original is stolen, damaged or destroyed, your conduct may fall within the doctrine of fair use. https://info.legalzoom.com/copyright-law-making-personal-cop...
I think the important bit is that you are making the copy.
Depends on your economy. Specifically what he does is of course illegal but the general principle of removing drm from your own purchase isn't
That the bitstream of semantically meaningful content is identical appears to be the key issue. Why does it matter how you get there?
The general principle of removing DRM is forbidden, at least in the US, which is presumably why DRM removal tools are distributed through the same shady web sources as pirated content.
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/20-contracting-out/tech...
I assumed it passed. Looks like it didn't pass, because of the US laws.
But if it is circumvented then it wasn’t effectively controlling access; therefore, this isn’t applicable.
A savvy lawyer might argue that’s not what’s meant by effectively, but it’s at least a little ambiguous.
1 reply →