Title from the article. Interesting article, with some good words from our DRM-free favorite Cory Doctorow.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/40754848
Title from the article. Interesting article, with some good words from our DRM-free favorite Cory Doctorow.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/40754848
I’d like to clarify that removing DRM does lie in a grey zone in many countries, including in the US due to some court rulings. In some countries the right to make a backup of your e-book might have priority over copyright law for example.
Sure, but companies who employ DRM have argued against that grey area since DRM was a thing. Something something IP/copyright/licensing/whatever bullshit… IMO: fuck you, I bought it, I own it, eat shit.
The DMCA makes it pretty clear that “Circumvention of Technological Protection Measures” is illegal. There are no exceptions for whether you own or redistribute the content in question.
It’s not needed.
If another law says you have a right to create backups of digital content you own, then two laws are in conflict. Why would dcma have precedence?
No idea about US, but in some countries it would be up to judges, and with enough rulings it would be settled one way or another.
Aussie copyright law gives us the right to circumvent protections in order to make copies to watch on a device the original can’t be played on.
Linux out of the box is remarkably incompatible with DRM protected content and so makes an excellent thing on which one might want to watch, listen to, or read a thing
You don’t happen to know what whereabouts in legislation that’s detailed, do you?
Circumvention: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s116an.html
That law doesn’t exist and that’s not how law works. Law does not specify what is allowed, only what isn’t. Breaking encryption isn’t.
What are you talking about? Law absolutely can specify that something is allowed.