On Tuesday, 22nd March 2011 at 13:29:45 (GMT +0100), Marcello Perathoner wrote:
It took me the best part of 2 minutes to find the "authoritative source" you requested.
Sorry, but that source does *not* support your assertion, as I demonstrated. At least not in any readily understandable way. Please guide us, Marcello, to discover in the text of the directive what you, apparently, see in it.
Hint: go to wikipedia and type "DRM" into that box up right. It works!
I'm familiar with Wikipedia's article on "DRM", but I find nothing whatsoever in it supporting your assertion that "removing DRM from your own e-books solely for your private use is illegal". Can you please quote the specific sentences from the Wikipedia article that you have in mind? (And, of course, Wikipedia is anything *but* an authoritative resource.)
I can't help if you can't read.
I'm a trained and certified linguist, Marcello, having graduated in linguistics. It's likely I can read better than most folks, and perhaps *that's* the issue here. :-P You refusing to provide any specific support for your claim just comes across as arrogant -- sorry. Again, the EU Directive you referenced talks about "exceptions and limitations" for copyright laws (in Article 4), and refers back to Article 5(2)(b) which, in its turn, explicitly mentions "reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial". Can you please explain these passages in the Directive for us, Marcello? You certainly just can't brush these passages aside and pretend that they don't exist, can you? A law is a *unit*, rather than a few sentences taken out of context.
Ahoi
Spelling correction: "Ahoj" :-D Vielen Dank, bitte nicht böse sein wegen der Diskussion. -- Yours, Alex. www.aboq.org [processed by "The Bat!", Version 4.2.10.12]