It is circumvention and it is illegal. There are only 6 allowed exemptions to the rule as of the last rulemaking, and making backup copies is not one of them, no matter the situation. The only exemption that exists for DRM-protected ebooks is to make stripping that DRM legal when no version of the ebook compatible with screen readers or read-aloud functions exists, so that the visually impaired can access the text.
So, why buy any media then? I'd rather just pirate it and be on my way. Xkcd/488 makes a great point: buying and then freeing from a dying system is just as illegal as copyright violation.
So, media types that use any DRM: why should I buy your product?
I doubt any media companies are much interested in swaying self-professed pirates that demand rights not offered to their side. You're coming from this imagined position that you deserve license to others' work on your terms at your price. The companies offering media with DRM for sale on the market have no such delusion that they have an innate right your money; they're OK with you not taking their offer. That's fine, since the value proposition is suitable to millions of others who will make the purchase on the terms offered -- watching a movie today is still worth some number of dollars even if you might not be able to dust it off 20 years from now to watch again. They're not OK with you infringing their rights to their property instead of declining the offer. But really, your moral and ethical compass won't be turned by logic or debate.
In terms of a capitalist debate, one side charges money for substandard product. The other side charges less, while providing a much better product. It just turns out, with copyright applied, the better side is illegal.
But being illegal hasn't stopped pirates yet, has it?
One major side effect isn't them trying to sway us; instead they are forced to release movies in the range of weeks, and not the traditional years. So yes, pirates are a competitive pressure downward.
Don't get me wrong: I think people should be paid for creative works. I like creative stuffs. I just disagree with putting locks on our culture, that are physically or legally hard to remove.
>DMCA circumvention clause makes many types of fair use illegal.
> If you make a personal backup by circumventing digital access controls, you are not violating copyright but you are violating the DMCA; you are committing a crime.
It looks to me like self contradicting laws then. How are such cases legally resolved i.e. when law A directly contradicts law B? Fair use says it's legal. DMCA says it's illegal. What is correct then?
And fair use is not a "defense". It's a description of lawful legal actions which aren't affected by restrictions granted in limited monopoly of copyright to begin with.
While it is possible to argue about analogies til the end of days, I don't think your analogy quite captures the essence of what is going on with the DMCA.
Allow me to present a refinement:
There exists one law that says it is only legal to make a right turn on red if you stop and look to the right first. There exists another law that says if you stop on red, you can't look to the right. The net result is that in order to avoid breaking any laws, you can't make a right turn on red.
These laws are technically not contradictory, but the end result is to nullify the ability to turn left on red just as the DMCA nullifies the ability to make a copy for any reason, fair use or otherwise.
Why isn't then fair use applicable to DMCA? It's against the point of fair use - i.e. not to prevent sensible usage of the content like backups. If DMCA forbids it, fair use becomes totally useless idea. So I'd say from people's perspective - in cases of fair use DCMA should be ignored as an insane law.
OK, probably it's better to rephrase the question, since copyright law and fair use concept predate DMCA. Why DMCA didn't include provisions of being not applicable in cases of fair use from the copyright law perspective?
The point of fair use is obvious - to limit copyright restrictions for sensible use cases (like personal use, accessibility and so on). Comes along DMCA and claims that cases covered by fair use are illegal. Was it the intention all along, or it was a sneaky way to do it? Can't DMCA be challenged on this grounds as being invalid as is?
Isn't DMCA unconstitutional as is? It restricts free speech rights.
But my question was not about it being directly unconstitutional (which I think it is). It was about it being nonsensical in the light of fair use (as the other commenter brought above about forbidding to look to the right before making a turn).
You just said that DMCA is separate from copyright and thus fair use doesn't apply to it conceptually. So DMCA is not related to right to establish exclusive rights to works and etc. And it restricts the free speech. So why is it not unconstitutional? (See https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1856128861.shtml
Are you allowed to rip the protection to keep access to something you've "bought"? Or is that circumvention and thus a criminal offence?