| > I have taken fair use into consideration. I'm constantly amazed at how many people don't understand what "fair use" actually means. Many seem to think it means "I should be able to do this" or even "I'm only using part of a copyrighted work". This issue has come up recently on Twitch with restreaming of TV shows, movies, anime and, more generally, with Youtube and other content. Fair use [1] is a specific legal doctrine specific to the United States copyright system. Other countries have different legal standards (eg UK's fair dealing [2]). Fair use is a four part legal test and all four factors have to apply for it to fall under the legislation and precedents of US copyright law. None of this is a commentary of the ethics of defeating DRM. From a purely legal point of view, defeating DRM puts you in violation of copyright law and all the case law (eg AACS decryption [3]) puts such efforts well outside "fair use". Now I think the copyright situation is ridiculous, not least of which because of a certain unnamed rodent that seems to completely dictate US copyright law (eg wait for another copyright extension beyond death plus 70 years before 2025). Personally I think copyright should be much shorter (eg 20 years total) with possible extensions that you have to pay an ever-increasing amount for. But to anyone who wants to release tools on defeating DRM, just know you do so at your own (legal) peril and fair use doesn't apply and won't save you. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controvers... |
The authors of this library can't possibly defend themselves by claiming fair use and they damn well know it. The real question is whether the tool really does break encryption or if the tool is just an implementation of the algorithm that doesn't comply with their terms and conditions. Theoretically, a white-room reverse engineered implementation could be written without signing any contract and the terms and conditions would only serve to cut off their access after violation, but you'd probably have a hard time convincing a judge of that. I don't favour their chances in a lawsuit, but as they don't publish any keys, it's clear that they don't really break anything.
There could still be a violation going on if they hold one of those silly American software patents, but that would be solvable by only distributing the tools in countries where these patents can't be enforced. That also wouldn't be covered by a DMCA takedown of course, they'd need to start an actual lawsuit for that.