4 ms·
The article is at least simplifying the issue. IANAL but the license for the product you bought has to specifically mention, that you are not allowed to break
by sorbits 17y ago
The article is at least simplifying the issue.
IANAL but the license for the product you bought has to specifically mention, that you are not allowed to break the DRM, but there are exceptions, for example you are allowed to break it for interoperability and last I read about this it specifically mentioned “to play on another OS” as a reason.
Even if the license does prevent you from breaking the DRM you can seek to get it removed if you have a reason for needing to copy the material (non-commercially). The vendor has 4 weeks to reply to such request, after which you are free to break it yourself, if the vendor does not reply.
But as said, IANAL — maybe some of all those who down-voted my original comment can help? ;)
- carussell 17y agoI can't tell if you're referring to the US position here (as you did originally), or the Danish implementation of the EU's Directive 2001/29/EC. If it's the former, I'm afraid you're wrong. Per DMCA, every three years the Register of Copyrights solicits written appeals and holds a series of public hearings to consider which classes of works should be exempted. The Librarian of Congress makes a determination about the exemptions for the following three year period. The 2009 rulemaking process is ongoing, but so far this has been done in 2000, 2003, and 2006. In those appeals, the public asked for exemptions for circumvention of DVDs for non-infringing use. The Librarian of Congress asked for them to fuck off. http://www.copyright.gov/1201/anticirc.html http://www.copyright.gov/1201/anticirc.html http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/index.html http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/index.html http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/index.html http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/index.html