[sjy]

You could make the argument that the technological measures are not effective (the RIAA says this was rejected by a court in Hamburg), but not in that extreme form. If the existence of a working circumvention tool implied that the technical measures were not “effective,” then all circumvention tools would be legal and the law would have no effect. “Effective” must mean something more than “so ineffective that it can be circumvented with common sense,” and something less than “so effective that there’s no need to make its circumvention illegal.”