alt Hacker NewsLet's say your interpretation holds water even though I, and the EFF in their handbook [https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-consequences-fifteen-ye...], and the US legal system just a few months ago [https://www.pearlcohen.com/court-upholds-dmcas-anti-circumve...], do not believe is correct. (It's easy to be an armchair lawyer - if you read the first amendment out of context, threatening to kill someone seems protected.)
Nintendo may potentially argue that yes, you are completely right. You have the right to interoperability, in the sense that you are allowed to make a device which physically takes Switch cards, decrypts them, plays them, from the original card, does not copy it to storage media of any kind, and does not allow the user any semblance of a DRM bypass, or any way to resell the original card while maintaining a copy. Interoperability is for building CD players, not CD rippers.
EDIT TO REPLY FOR "POSTING TOO FAST": Section 117 is very clever, except there's one problem: It was created in 1980, before the DMCA. Thus, if there is a conflict between the DMCA and Section 117, the DMCA is likely to receive the benefit of the doubt. As such, Section 117 is only effective for demonstrating the legality of copying non encrypted programs, or (as an actual lawyer put it), copying a program with the DRM remaining intact, as useless as that is.
Combine my point about interoperability in the courtroom + Section 117 likely being overruled by Section 1201 of the later DMCA which is extremely restrictive on bypassing "technological protection measures" copied or not, and it's not a clear win.
Replies
Reply to your edit:
That's what the first exception in the DMCA itself is for. It provides that:
1. You can manually decrypt DRM'd content if it's software you own a legal copy of and you need to run it.
2. You can make an automated tool that does step 1.
3. You can share that tool with anyone as long as they respect 1.
The DMCA DRM clauses only care about that, the DRM itself. Not whether you make a new copy of the content.
> Let's say your interpretation holds water even though I, and the EFF in their handbook [https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-consequences-fifteen-ye...], and the US legal system just a few months ago [https://www.pearlcohen.com/court-upholds-dmcas-anti-circumve...], do not believe is correct.
The case you linked to has nothing to do with the interoperability exception. I don't know how they could reject my view if they never touched it.
Also
> Nintendo may potentially argue that yes, you are completely right. You have the right to interoperability, in the sense that you are allowed to make a device which physically takes Switch cards, decrypts them, plays them, from the original card, does not copy it to storage media of any kind, and does not allow the user any semblance of a DRM bypass, or any way to resell the original card while maintaining a copy.
And they would be right, if copyright law didn't have an additional exception...
17 U.S.C § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1)that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.