New Copyright Threat Warning

A recidivist?

I will just have to agree to differ with you, the law and everyone else on this issue, Chosen. Harping on about intellectual property rights is so much fatuous nonsense in a situation where no corollary of consumer rights exists to balance the argument.

Even without the consideration of consumer rights, the ostensible ruling that I or anyone else is damaging the creator's intellectual property by copying and/or altering it for their own use is specious. My avatar is not a promotion for businesses in SL. I bought products to facilitate the look and the creator's involvement, rights and privileges ended when I paid them for copies of their work.

My actions are not motivated by greed, profit or any intention to do harm. I am working to make the best of a considerable sum spent during the previous year on products that are unquestionably unfit for their purpose and I will defend my right to do so until I am permanently locked out of SL and possibly chased into some RL court.

And then some.

The boots example at the end of my previous post amounts to more than 28 US dollars expenditure when I take into account copies and different versions bought for alts (I like to keep them well turned-out). There is no argument that I should have known better because it was only yesterday that I realised just what a heavy load this particular item carries (I forgot to mention the additional two logo textures that I won't be including in my final copy). How on earth can I reasonably expect a response to my complaint about a product I purchased more than ten months ago? The same goes for a great deal of inventory accrued on my rapid ascent of the SL learning curve.

I feel like a fool on this particular matter because I routinely complain to others about overly rich texturing. I am even on record in another post on this forum with a complaint about a 1024 x 1024 texture on the face of a wrist watch, for example: shaking my head over that ridiculous object while wearing more than 10 megabytes on my feet.

So I refuse to accept that I should be lumbered with this stuff on a 'take it or leave it' basis just because that's what the law says. 'Take it and alter it to suit yourself' is a far more workable and realistic solution that I will abide by until such time as a rigidly enforced mechanism of consumer protection is added to the SL environment.

When I get around to making a dinky pair of boots or a sufficiently interesting skin of my own, I will put those items up for sale at a reasonable price in full acceptance of the fact that buyers may copy and alter the products by whatever means they have at their disposal. I should say that my goal will be to ensure that customers will not wish to alter an otherwise perfectly serviceable and attractive product. Nevertheless, it will be their privilege, not a right accorded by my good self, to make any alterations or copies they want if they have paid me but still seek to make my product look and behave more like something of their own. So long as they do not resell or redistribute the product as their own work, that will be entirely their own business. Even then, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" means more to me than the lindens I might have accrued through lost profits.

And if someone makes a better job of my product? I will get a kick out of that too.


Ephraim Kappler chuckles: sincere 'pologies Ma'am, I'll be gettin back to work now.

The legal fiction that making copies inside a computer that are required for the use of a product should be treated in law just as if you were distributing copies to third parties for profit or to undermine the profits of the creator is not universally supported by experts in this field of law.

'Preciate yore economic support of my verb'age, Mr Stonecutter.

What's a "redicitivist"? Typo, perhaps? Did you mean "redactionist"?



I'm glad you now at least are willing to acknowledge the fact that you are indeed breaking the law. That's a little progress, I guess.

That you have such little respect for the rule of law is quite troubling, though. There are plenty of laws I don't quite agree with, myself, but I still abide by them, while using legitimate means to try to get them changed. I wish you could find the strength to do the same.



But that's the point you keep refusing to accept. You're not a "consumer" in this context. You're a licensee. There's a huge difference there.

For at least the third time now, "buying" an item in SL doesn't mean you own the item, or any part of it. It means you've aquired a license to use the item in whole, not in part, within the confines of the Second Life service. That's it, and that's all.

No matter how much you might wish the facts were different, they're simply not. It is what it is.

If you want to arrange a different license agreement with any content creator, up to and including full consumption, that's between you and each specific creator in question. But in the absense of such an agreement, the previous agreement you made when you agreed to SL's TOS is what is binding. Shall I quote it for you?



Got that? All content in SL is provided under license, and you acknowledge that your use of the SL service does not constitute transfer of creators' rights to you. What part of that was not clear when you signed up and agreed to the TOS? Let me guess; you didn't bother to read it, did you?



Please don't try to twist my words. I never said you damaged the creator's intellectual property in any way. I said you harmed the creator him/herself by infringing upon his/her rights. I know you're intelligent enough to understand the difference.



No, you bought a license to use intellectual property owned by someone else, for very limited purposes. You did not buy any actual product. The creator's rights in no way ended when you made your "purchase". Need I once again quote the agreement you made when you signed up for SL?






Your motivation is irrelevant. You either honor your agreements or you don't. You either act in compliance with the law or you don't. It doesn't matter why.

But since you mentioned it, I would argue that you ARE in fact motivated by greed, contrary to what you might tell yourself. Your own explanation for why you've done what you've done illustrates that well enough. You believe your own personal desires are more important than the rights of others. You want what you want, and you're not willing to do without, regardless of how your actions impact said rights of others. Further, you've got no hesitation about breaking the law in order to get what you want. When people don't respond to notecards you've allegedly sent them, rather than just walking away, you call them "pricks" and other assorted names, and then you proceed to steal their intellectual property to use for your own purposes. That is the very definition of greed.




If the items are truly "unfit", don't use them. Examine all items thoroughly BEFORE you make your purchase, always. If you can't easily find the information you need, ask the seller all relevant questions before you buy. If they choose not to respond, do business with someone else who will. If you failed to do any or all of that, that was entirely your decision. The money you spent is gone because you voluntarily threw it away. Be a grownup and live with the consequences of your own actions.




Really? "And then some"? So you're saying if LL decides you're no longer welcome in the service they own, you'll come back anyway? And that even if a court penalizes you for your actions, you still won't take responsibility for your actions; you'll just keep on repeating them? And you say you're not greedy? Wow.

Need I say it again? Spoken like a true criminal.




Yes, you should have known better. Whether or not you acknowledge that now, you still have no right to make unauthorized copies of anyone else's IP, or to circumvent DRM.




You never know until you try. Did you try?

I can't speak for other creators, but to use myself as an example, I've got several products I've updated over the years. My policy regarding improved versions in most cases is that they're offered free to anyone who's purchased a previous version of the same item. All a past customer has to do is ask, and I'll happily drop them a copy of the new version. It doesn't matter if the original purchase was 10 months ago, 5 years ago, or 5 minutes ago.

Of course, not everyone is going to have the same policy I do. Some might charge for upgrades. Some might not offer them. Some might be out of business. But unless you ask, you'll never know.

But whether the creator responds to your inquiry or not, or whether any response the offer is favorable or unfavorable in your view, you still don't have the right to make unauthorized copies of their work or to circumvent DRM. Again, you licensed IP that they own. Live with the terms of license agreement to which you originally agreed. There's no other answer.




Yes, there's a learning curve. Everyone makes mistakes along the way. The difference between people like you and the rest of us is we grownups live with our mistakes. We either correct them legally, and without trampling on the rights of others, or we simply let them lie. Either way, we're in the right. You, absolutely, are not.




Fine, feel like a fool about that if you must. But again, that doesn't give you license to steal other people's IP or to circumvent DRM. If you feel the items you're using are unsuitable, replace them with others, without breaking the law, and without violating anyone else's rights. That means either buy new ones or make your own from scratch. That's it.




Once again, I'm very glad you're finally ready to acknowledge that the law does indeed say what it actually says. But I'm deeply disturbed by the fact that you're not willing to abide by it. By this, you demonstrate with non uncertainty that you really are the criminal you so adamantly denied you were just a few hour ago in your previous post. One who deliberately breaks the law is by definition a criminal.




"Take it and alter it yourself" is not what you agreed to when you signed up for SL. So in addition to not caring about the letter of the law, you're also now saying you don't give a damn about honoring your own word. That's really not cool.

As for "consumer protection", I might agree with you, if you were indeed a consumer. But as I said, you're a licensee in this arena, and there's a world of difference there.

If you want to talk about licensee protections, I'd be the first to advocate for better access to education on these topics, so people hopefully will be better prepared to understand the activities in which they're engaging, before they make commitments. Beyond that, there's not a whole lot to be done. If one enters into an agreement, one is solely responsible to understand the terms of the agreement before saying yes.




Great. That's entirely your choice to make. If you truly intend to grant rights to your customers in excess of the usual standard, which is absolutely your right to do, I would suggest you make that absolutely clear in your advertising. That way your customers will know where you stand on the subject, and there will be no confusion.

Beyond that, you should also include all source textures with the items, so that your customers won't have to circumvent DRM to get at them. Technically, they'd be in violation of DMCA otherwise, even if you've given permission. It's not your DRM, it's LL's, so you don't get a say on it. Let your customers abide by your wishes legally, if that's really your intent.

But remember, the people whose IP you've been taking up until now did not grant any such express permissions to you. Just because you'd make such a grant yourself does not mean that any other content creators are obligated to do so themselves. Respect their wishes and their rights, just as you'd like others to respect yours.




That's the first righteous strategy you've presented so far. If you don't like the mousetraps currently on the market are inferior in your view, the best thing you can possibly do is build better ones. Put yours on the market, and drive your subpar competition out of business. Everyone wins that way. Customers get better items, and you get to make money.

Even the competition wins in the long run, although it won't feel like it at the time, since the downturn in sales of their inferior items will spur them either to get their act together and make better ones, or to move on to other professions to which they might be better suited.




Your apparent definitions of rights and privileges is a little off the mark, but I won't dwell on it. It's obvious what you mean. You want your customers to be able to alter your products any way they want. Great. As I said, be sure to include the source textures with full perms, be sure to make the items themselves mod/copy or full perms, and be sure to include the terms of your license in your advertising.





Fantastic. I'm glad you're so benevolent and giving. Now if only you could extend those same feelings toward respecting the rights of other content creators as well.







Nothing argent said here supports your position in any way, Ephraim. Read on for explanation.





Notice Argent said "making copies inside a computer that are required for the use of a product". That's not what we've been discussing, not at all.

Ripping a texture and then re-uploading it is in no way necessary for the use of any SL product. If one doesn't like the way a particular product is put together, that doesn't mean the product is not usable as is. It just means it's not optimal in the opinion of the user, which is hardly the same thing.

As it turns out, that's precisely what the client does when it bakes your skin and clothing textures. That's where the application of copyright law gets shaky. The question of what is or is not legal, and what should or should not be legal, in this kind of situation is right on the cutting edge of legal theory.

Argent, we've already had this discussion in this thread. What the client does automatically is within the normal confines of the use of the SL service. It's expected behavior, and no one has a problem with it. That's one of the reasons the TOS stipulates that we grant LL the right to "reproduce and distribute [our] Content within the Service".

That's a far cry from extracting the texture out of the viewer to make additional copies of it.

You're not comparing apples to apples, my friend.

Now you're talking about the Linden Labs terms of service: that's contract law, not copyright law, and at a much lower level.

I'm talking about the conflict between the current strong copyright law in the US, the intent of copyright as laid out in the constitution, and issues brought up by groups like "Freedom to Tinker" and "Free Culture".

I'm also not talking about the original commercial service where redistribution unequivocally took place.

Ephraim Kappler roars laughing: I have no idea what a"redicitivist" is, Chosen. It seems you are imagining typos. If you don't know what my tongue-in-cheek suggestion of "recidivist" means then look it up in the dictionary.


Argent's post supports my argument perfectly: whatever the letter of the law might say, and however much you want to quote it, the common sense of this issue would have to be hammered out between two lawyers in a court and there is no guarantee whatsoever that a judgement would support your assertions.

Nevertheless, I hazard a guess you would attempt to argue the judge down if his decision failed to satisfy you.

While I have tremendous respect for your technical knowledge and the elegant and generous manner by which you impart it to others, I must insist that you are very wrong to push this matter as an authority because it is just so much browbeating legalese: it galls me to read someone of your obvious intelligence splitting hairs over the use of words such as "consumer" and "licensee" when common sense dictates we're not discussing the boilerplate in a contract between multi-nationals.

The only reason I saw fit to contribute to this thread was that it disturbed me you were holding forth with such vehemence on what is after all just another overblown case of content-creator paranoia in SL. Having made my point, however, I see no further cause for a dissection of words on the issue.

I'm puzzled why you brought it up in this thread, Argent. All appearances were you were offering it as information relevant to the discussion at hand. Now you seem to be acknowledging that it's not.

In any case, I agree with you that there quite often is a disparity between the letter of copyright law and the manner in which many computer programs and services have to operate. That's not the case with SL, since its developers were careful to include a contract which serves to clarify what we do and don't allow the service to do with our IP. Because we agree to grant certain rights to LL, copyright law does not get in the way of how SL works. Not every developer is as legally careful as LL, though, so some programs and services technically do operate in breach of copyright law.

But as you point out, most reasonable people do agree that such use is within the spirit of the law, if not specifically within its letter. Sooner or later, the wording will be amended to reflect as much.

Whoops. Sorry I totally misread the word. Don't I feel silly now.

Yes, I know what a recidivist is. I can't imagine why I didn't realize that's the word I was looking at. Guess I forgot to eat my Wheaties this morning or something.




No, his post has nothing to do with anything you were talking about. He was describing the normal, perfectly expected, operation of many computer programs and services. You've been talking about doing the very abnormal thing of deliberately ripping textures to make your own copies for your own use. Those are two entirely different concepts.

I know from your use of language that you're intelligent enough to understand these differences. You'd do well to quit pretending otherwise.



No, if a judge made a decision, I'd abide by it, just as I'm required to, under the law. If I felt he were wrong in his assessment, and that I had sufficient evidence to prove it, I'd appeal, again in full compliance with the law. And if I felt the law were wrong, I'd take it up with Congress.



It's not a quesiton of splitting hairs. I could turn it right around and say it galls me to read someone of YOUR obvious intelligence trying to claim that appropriate description of two radically different concepts is "hair-splitting". A consumer is an entirely different thing than a licensee.

A licensee enters into a contract with a lincenser, which is what you did when you originally signed up for the SL service, and is what you continue to do every time you make a "purchase" within it. You are obligated to honor the terms of that agreement.

A consumer purchases a product from a seller, and then owns that product, lock, stock, and barrel. That's got absolutely nothing to do with what we all do in SL every day.




First, it's got nothing to do with paranoia. It's a matter of rights, and of right and wrong. It's a matter of principle.

Second, I can't help but chuckle at the way you're ending this. I've had the law and the agreement you willingly engaged in with LL on my side the whole time, while you've done nothing but describe your own selfish wants, and your willingness to defy both the law and your own word, in order to obtain them. Yet you now claim you've "made your point". Well, if your point was to demonstrate how unscrupulous you are, then I guess you've accomplished that. Well done.

There are multiple discussions going on here. I was commenting on the argument that ripping the texture of a skin you've bought to correct a flaw in it is somehow equivalent to ripping the texture with the intent to sell it (either directly or indirectly as in the original example). The latter is akin to pirating CDs. The former is akin to taping a movie for later viewing.

I could bring up case law from the Betamax decision on that makes it clear that copies for personal use are at the worst trifles that the law does not strain at.

When you buy a CD, it says that unauthorized reproduction is a violation of the law. There is nothing in law or contract that allows you to "Rip, Mix, and Burn" as the Apple advertisement for iTunes went... and yet Apple weathered the lawsuits over that ad campaign in fine form. Conversely, the iTunes store explicitly allows you to make audio CDs but there is nothing suggesting you are entitled to rip them again (in fact if you are doing it to remove Apple's DRM it's explicitly illegal under the DMCA), and yet Apple has recommended you make such copies as backups.

I can not call ripping and modifying a texture theft, so long as you are scrupulous about retaining control of that copy and not redistributing it.

And that is my point. You appeared to be making the argument that all such lawbreaking was equally wrong. We are all of us, on occasion, lawbreakers. The law is too complex and has too much contrary to common sense that we can't help it. Intent, scope, and ... yes ... even analogy has its part.

I agree with Chosen that ripping textures is a violation of DMCA, because it intentionally thwarts DRM provisions.

I believe and hope that eventually this aspect of DMCA will be found unconstitutional, especially the provision that makes even discussing methods illegal. (Yes, it's illegal for me to tell you that holding down the shift key while inserting some CDs in your computer will allow you to load them into your computer! Good thing I didn't tell you that!)

But there's no question: it's currently illegal; a violation of DMCA. What's worse, is rather than being a mere civil infraction that the injured party must sue to redress (such as a patent violation, and most copyright violations that aren't "piracy", it's a criminal offense, and the US Gov't can arrest you for it.

Whether violating DMCA is immoral, when used to modify personal property, is another discussion entirely. I agree wholeheartedly with Ephraim that if we buy a skin and want to permanently embed a tattoo on it, the law should not prevent us from doing so.

But, it does.

I confess, I occasionally violate laws that I feel are immoral. I also sometimes drive over the speed limit, even though I assert no moral imperative to do so.

DMCA was the US Congress's attempt to bring copyright law up to date with respect to the digital age. However, it was perverted by the recording industry to protect their profit model at the cost of personal liberty and ended up being terribly lopsided. This to protect an industry that has a horrible record of abusing copyright holders' rights, ironically enough.

That's just cheap.

Apart from assiduously blockquoting my posts, did you assimilate a single damn word I wrote? I think not, but then again, a post on a blog isn't a detail of a statute or contract.

Lacks authority doesn't it?

YEA THAT!

I really hate the way skins work now. They occupy the tattoo slots completely, you cannot change makeups and if you want diff makeups you have to buy another full version of your skin with a different make up or some 4k-10k skin pack with all the makeups. That is just a crock of crap.

No one likes the way skins work now, Briana. You're not alone in your feelings. But again, not liking something doesn't give anyone the right to break the law. The proper solution, which many of us have been begging LL to implement for years now, would be the advent of a more flexible layering system for the avatar. Not only would that fix the legal problems, because DRM would no longer get in the way, it would prevent 90% of discussions like this one from ever happening at all.



Argent, your Betamax analogy is not an entirely accurate comparison. That case only involved the creation of reproductions (recordings) for private personal use. It did not allow for uploading copies to third party Web severs (such things did not yet exist, after all), or for public display of the copies. Altering a skin in SL requires both those things. It goes well beyond the scope of the Betamax precedent.

The same is true for your iTunes example. "Rip, mix, & burn" does not include "upload to another server" and "broadcast to the public". Private personal use is all that is allowed.



Lear, I totally agree with you that the DMCA isn't perfect. No law is. But until it's improved upon, we do need to abide by the law as written, whether we like it or not. In any case, the DMCA does not specifically make it illegal just to discuss techniques. Some of its wording could be loosely interpreted as such, if the reader is sufficiently paranoid, but that's really it.



Ephraim, I don't think my comment you quoted was "cheap" in any way. You explained your disdain for the law, your complete disrespect for the rights of other content creators, and your total unwillingness to act in compliance with either, in no uncertain terms. I have no problem defining all of that as "unscrupulous". It was an accurate assessment in my view, and I stand by it.

As for the rest of your latest post, I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. What's your definition of "absorb" in this context? If you mean "agree", then the answer is no, I don't agree with most of what you said. If you mean "comprehend", then yes, I did fully understand your words. Again, I stand by my responses to all of it, in full (except for that one misread word, of course).

As for your reference to a blog post, there you've lost me completely. To what blog were you referring?

I'll take my $1 USD in Linden please.

Do you accept quatloos? That's all I've got on me.

Well...I guess if it's in the form of a prim and nicely textured with transfer perms so i can sell them as 'rare items by Chosen Few' if a plane does happen to fall out of the sky on to you.

Feel free to. But personally, if I want a face tattoo on a copiable skin, I'll feel free to upload the skin, add the tattoo, and wear it. Of course, I would not distribute it.

I won't argue with those who hold themselves to the letter and spirit of the law. Nor would I argue with those who, after carefully considering the ethical issues, violate the law without abridging the reasonable rights of others, taking responsibility for all the consequences.

In this case, the intent of the law is to thwart piracy. I bridle at content creators who take the unintended consequences of the mechanics of this law to invent new rights for themselves, such as the right not to have their work modified by others for their own personal use. (I'm not implying that this is your attitude; I don't believe it is. But I have seen it expressed a number of times by other content creators.) There is no such principle in US law or case law (precedent). The closest I can find is some European laws against defacing art treasures, but that applies only to acknowledged and historic works, as far as I can tell.

For a taste of all the ways in which DMCA has been used by industry to invent new rights, having nothing to do with piracy, see http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archive.

For example, my argument that ripping textures to give yourself a tattoo also prevents you from being able to run a non-Apple application on your iPhone without being a criminal. Remember when Mr Coffee tried to keep us from using competitors' filters? Fortunately, reason presumed in that case and it was shot down. And in that case, it only affected the warranty: you were not considered a criminal for using a Brand-X filter! But Apple says you are, and thanks to DMCA, they have a good case.

I agree that it's important to fix broken laws. I do not agree that it is necessary to follow unreasonable provisions in bad laws, even if the intended purpose of the law is valid.

I don't buy your argument here. There is a huge difference between wearing something in public and "uploading copies to third-party web servers for public display".

There's a big difference between an SL skin and a TV broadcast, that needs to be taken into account. A TV broadcast is *intended to be viewed in private*. If you tried to put up a massive TV screen and show broadcasts to huge crowds, you'd get taken down. A skin is intended to be viewed in public.

In both cases (Betamax and skin ripping to modify your personal copy), the copying is for personal purposes, not for piracy. In both cases, the result is being displayed as the original product was intended, with a personal difference. For betamax, the difference is the time of viewing. For a modified skin, it's a change in the appearance, or in many cases, for the convenience of wearing one inventory item rather than two, making room available for wearing other things. In neither case does the copying violate the valid rights of the content creator.

Piracy is bad.

Using anti-piracy laws to invent new "rights" for content creators is also bad. However, it is the current state of the law, and a creator would be within their legal rights to file a claim in such a case. I would hope that a self-respecting creator would have the good judgement not to do so.

You make some excellent points, Lear. Thanks for interjecting your clear-headedness into the discussion. I don't necessarily agree with all your views on all points, but you make it very apparent that your views are well considered, and that's something I very much appreciate and respect.

I'll concede that the question of whether simply wearing a skin constitutes publicly displaying it is debatable. I can see valid arguments on both sides for that. The nature of "private personal use" has certainly evolved since Betamax. It would be very interesting indeed to see what a court would decide on this subject.

For what it's worth, I'll repeat once again my dismay and disappointment that LL has yet to provide us with any means to customize skins post-purchase that does not involve breaking the law. You're correct in your assertion that I don't believe creators should have the right to control whether or not legitimate copies of their work end up altered. That was never what my arguments were about. Thank you for recognizing that. I'd be the first one in favor of new tools, and new licensing arrangements, to allow such alterations to be performed in full compliance with all applicable laws, and with as much ease as is technically possible. Frankly, it's pathetic that LL has been so lax on this.

I do have some concerns about how alterations could potentially affect a creator's reputation unfairly, but that's another subject, for another thread.

Gee, I must be on my meds today.

I agree wholeheartedly that these issues are debatable. There are valid arguments for a wide array of different viewpoints here. While I argued against your point re Betamax, I'd still use it were I counsel for the plaintiff. (Thank goodness I went into software and not law, but just about everyone else in my family are lawyers. Makes for some lively dinner conversation. Growing up, my sibs and I got very good at handling cross-examination!)

I'm also looking forward to a solution from LL. The JIRA is assigned; have we heard anything from the developer? It's not going to be a trivial fix.

Given that the viewer is open source software, who's to say what is "normal" operation of the viewer? If I were to add a feature that combined skins and tattoos to a baked file in a separate floater in order to free up clothing layers, would that be illegal?

Your close minded definition of what is "legal" and what the SL viewer does is inherently flawed, you're looking to limit the creativity of others simply because you didn't think to offer the service first.

Provided what he said was true, (That he does not keep copies of any textures and that all skins are given to the client no-transfer) he isn't doing anything that a person couldn't otherwise do. He isn't giving them any additional capabilities, he's simply giving them a simpler way to use two items they've purchased.

Day is correct in this case, this person is simply doing what the viewer does, except in a permanent and more efficient manner, it would be relatively simple to implement a new feature in the viewer that did the same.

As for your mention of the DMCA, not all of us live in the USA, the DMCA is a US law. I am breaking no law by circumventing DRM methods due to the fact that I do not reside in the United States.

That's an interesting argument.

I disagree. The method used is clearly an intentional method to thwart copy protection mechanisms, and thus violates DMCA. Now, if he had modified a viewer to perform a similar function for skins and clothing he had purchased, simply providing flexibility rather than producing or transferring explicitly ripped copies, your argument above would apply and render it reasonable, IMHO.

As it turns out, you're incorrect here, because, as mentioned above, the users of his service could use his service to make copies of no-copy content, which could then be transferred while retaining a copy. In other words, even if the service provider is as ethical as possible, his service provides a means for others to violate the valid intent of the original permissions and effectively steal from content creators. (See Nyoko's post above, for example.)

However, DMCA is explicitly part of the TOS for SL, so it does apply.

I agree with you in spirit, that this kind of thing *should* be possible without violating anyone's rights. I disagree only in terms of (a) the fact that the service allows an exploit and (b) it is a violation of TOS based on the letter of the law. I'm NOT a fan of DMCA, btw, and I do NOT assert that any violation of DMCA is ethically or morally reprehensible. For example, I wouldn't admonish someone for hacking their iPhone to run 3rd party programs on it!

Ethically, I object due to (a) above.

Technically, it's a DMCA violation and thus a TOS violation. I make no ethical or moral claim in this regard.