A federal jury in Las Vegas has convicted five men for operating Jetflicks, one of the largest illegal streaming services in the U.S., the Justice Department announced Thursday. The service, which charged $9.99 monthly, allegedly hosted over 183,200 TV episodes, surpassing legitimate streaming platforms. Prosecutors said the operation caused "substantial harm" to copyright owners. The defendants face up to 48 years in prison for conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and related charges. Sentencing dates are pending.

The Internet Archive's Open Library, which operates similarly to traditional libraries by lending out digital copies of purchased or donated physical books, has been forced to remove 500,000 books due to a lawsuit by big publishers. Mike Masnick reports via Techdirt: As we've discussed at great length, the Internet Archive's Open Library system is indistinguishable from the economics of how a regular library works. The Archive either purchases physical books or has them donated (just like a physical library). It then lends them out on a one-to-one basis (leaving aside a brief moment where it took down that barrier when basically all libraries were shut down due to pandemic lockdowns), such that when someone "borrows" a digital copy of a book, no one else can borrow that same copy. And yet, for all of the benefits of such a system in enabling more people to be able to access information, without changing the basic economics of how libraries have always worked, the big publishers all sued the Internet Archive. The publishers won the first round of that lawsuit. And while the court (somewhat surprisingly!) did not order the immediate closure of the Open Library, it did require the Internet Archive to remove any books upon request from publishers (though only if the publishers made those books available as eBooks elsewhere).

As the case has moved into the appeals stage (where we have filed an amicus brief), the Archive has revealed that around 500,000 books have been removed from the open library. The Archive has put together an open letter to publishers, requesting that they restore access to this knowledge and information -- a request that will almost certainly fall on extremely deaf ears: "We purchase and acquire books -- yes, physical, paper books -- and make them available for one person at a time to check out and read online. This work is important for readers and authors alike, as many younger and low-income readers can only read if books are free to borrow, and many authors' books will only be discovered or preserved through the work of librarians. We use industry-standard technology to prevent our books from being downloaded and redistributed -- the same technology used by corporate publishers. But the publishers suing our library say we shouldn't be allowed to lend the books we own. They have forced us to remove more than half a million books from our library, and that's why we are appealing."

Kraken, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world, has accused a trio of security researchers of discovering a critical bug, expoliting it to steal millions in digital cash, then using stolen funds to extort the exchange for more. The Register: The exchange wrote about the issue yesterday, saying the exploit allowed some users "to artificially increase the value of their Kraken account balance without fully completing a deposit." Kraken chief security officer Nicholas Percoco said on X that the researchers didn't provide any details in their bug bounty report, but that his team discovered the bug within an hour. According to Percoco, the issue derived from a recent UX change that would credit client accounts before assets actually cleared to create an artificial sense of real-time cryptocurrency trades. "This UX change was not thoroughly tested against this specific attack vector," Percoco admitted on X.

imply reporting the bug would have been enough for a sizable bounty, Percoco added. The researcher who disclosed the vulnerability, who Kraken didn't name "because they didn't comply with any [bug bounty] industry expectations," didn't stop there, however. According to Percoco, the analyst behind the find shared it with a couple of coworkers, who then exploited the vulnerability to withdraw nearly $3 million from the platform. Kraken noted that the funds stolen in this way were from the Kraken treasury and weren't client assets.

The European Union is getting closer to passing new rules that would mandate the bulk scanning of digital messages -- including encrypted ones. On Thursday, EU governments will adopt a position on the proposed legislation, which is aimed at detecting child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The vote will determine whether the proposal has enough support to move forward in the EU's law-making process. From a report: The law, first introduced in 2022, would implement an "upload moderation" system that scans all your digital messages, including shared images, videos, and links. Each service required to install this "vetted" monitoring technology must also ask permission to scan your messages. If you don't agree, you won't be able to share images or URLs.

As if this doesn't seem wild enough, the proposed legislation appears to endorse and reject end-to-end encryption at the same time. At first, it highlights how end-to-end encryption "is a necessary means of protecting fundamental rights" but then goes on to say that encrypted messaging services could "inadvertently become secure zones where child sexual abuse material can be shared or disseminated."

wgoodman shares a report from The Register: NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft is back in action and conducting normal science operations for the first time since the veteran probe began spouting gibberish at the end of 2023. All four of the spacecraft's remaining operational instruments are now returning usable data to Earth, according to NASA. Some additional work is needed to tidy up the effects of the issue. Engineers need to resynchronize the timekeeping software of Voyager 1's three onboard computers to ensure that commands are executed at the correct times. Maintenance will also be performed on the digital tape recorder, which records some data from the plasma instrument for a six-monthly downlink to Earth.

Voyager 1's woes began in November 2023, when the spacecraft stopped transmitting usable data back to Earth. Rather than engineering and science data, NASA found itself faced with a repeating pattern of ones and zeroes, as though the spacecraft was somehow stalled. Engineers reckoned the issue lay with the Flight Data System (FDS) and in March sent a command -- dubbed a "poke" -- to get the FDS to try some other software sequences and thus circumvent whatever was causing the problem. The result was a complete memory dump from the computer, which allowed engineers to pinpoint where the corruption had occurred. It appeared that a single chip was malfunctioning, and engineers were faced with the challenge of devising a software update that would work around the defective hardware.

Usable engineering data began to be returned later in April, and in May the mission team sent commands to instruct the probe to keep science data flowing. The result was that the plasma wave subsystem and magnetometer instrument began sending data immediately. According to NASA, the cosmic ray subsystem and low energy charged particle instrument required a little more tweaking but are now operational. The rescue was made all the more impressive by the fact that it takes 22.5 hours for a command to reach Voyager 1 and another 22.5 hours for a response to be received on Earth.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Alphabet's Google must face trial on U.S. antitrust enforcers' claim that the internet search juggernaut illegally dominates the online advertising technology market, a federal judge ruled on Friday. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, denied Google's motion during a hearing, according to court records. Google had argued for a win without a trial, saying that antitrust laws do not block companies from refusing to deal with rivals and that regulators had not accurately defined the ad tech market. Court papers did not specify what reasons the judge provided at the hearing. Motions like the one Google filed are only granted where a judge determines there is no factual dispute to send to trial. Last year, the U.S. Justice department and eight states sued Google, calling for the break up of the search giant's ad-technology business over alleged illegal monopolization of the digital advertising market.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: New York Attorney General Letitia James has recovered $50 million from the cryptocurrency platform Gemini Trust to repay investors defrauded in its Gemini Earn program, she said on Friday. Gemini, run by billionaire twin brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, will provide full recoveries to more than 230,000 Earn investors, including 29,000 in New York, and agreed to a ban on operating crypto lending programs in the state. The payout is in addition to James' related $2 billion settlement, opens new tab with crypto lender Genesis Global Capital, which she announced on May 20.

"Gemini marketed its Earn program as a way for investors to grow their money, but actually lied and locked investors out of their accounts," James said. "Today's settlement will make defrauded investors whole." The funds will be accessible within seven days, Gemini told investors on Friday. "With this final distribution, Earn users will have received 100% of the assets owed to them," it said. [...] Investors are expected to recover more than they invested because they are being paid in digital assets such as bitcoin , whose value has more than tripled since redemptions were suspended.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Brussels is set to charge Apple over allegedly stifling competition on its mobile app store, the first time EU regulators have used new digital rules to target a Big Tech group. The European Commission has determined that the iPhone maker is not complying with obligations to allow app developers to "steer" users to offers outside its App Store without imposing fees on them, according to three people with close knowledge of its investigation.

The charges would be the first brought against a tech company under the Digital Markets Act, landmark legislation designed to force powerful "online gatekeepers" to open up their businesses to competition in the EU. The commission, the EU's executive arm, said in March it was investigating Apple, as well as Alphabet and Meta, under powers granted by the DMA. An announcement over the charges against Apple was expected in the coming weeks, said two people with knowledge of the case.

A group of London hospitals struggling to contain the fallout from a cyberattack against a critical supplier had known for years about weaknesses that left them vulnerable to hacks, Bloomberg News reported Friday, citing internal documents. From the report: The Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, which runs five major hospitals in the London area, has failed to meet the UK health service's data security standards in recent years and acknowledged as recently as April that 'cybersecurity remained a high risk" to its operations, according to publicly available documents that outline board of directors' meetings. In January, the board of directors raised questions about the security of digital links between hospital computer systems and those of third-party companies.

Hackers last week brought down the trust's pathology services provider, Synnovis, with severe knock-on effects at hospitals. Doctors have, among other things, been forced to delay medical operations, postpone blood tests and resort to handwritten records. The attack has disrupted blood services so drastically that medical facilities are asking the public for donations, and one hospital is calling on its own staff to contribute. The April report proposed an audit to identify where improvements could be made. It's not clear if improvements took place before the hack on June 3, or whether the vulnerabilities identified in the board of directors' reports -- which include dated IT systems and hardware devices -- had any bearing on the ransomware infection at Synnovis.

Speaking of Microsoft, the House Homeland Security committee is grilling Microsoft President Brad Smith Thursday about the software giant's plans to improve its security after a series of devastating hacks reached into federal officials' email accounts, challenging the company's fitness as a dominant government contractor. Washington Post adds:The questioning followed a withering report on one of those breaches, where the federal Cyber Safety Review Board found the event was made possible by a "cascade of avoidable errors" and a security culture "that requires an overhaul." In that hack, suspected agents of China's Ministry of State Security last year created digital keys using a tool that allowed them to pose as any existing Microsoft customer. Using the tool, they impersonated 22 organizations, including the U.S. Departments of State and Commerce, and rifled through Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo's email among others.

The event triggered the sharpest criticism in decades of the stalwart federal vendor, and has prompted rival companies and some authorities to push for less government reliance on its technology. Two senators wrote to the Pentagon last month, asking why the agency plans to improve nonclassified Defense Department tech security with more expensive Microsoft licenses instead of with alternative vendors. "Cybersecurity should be a core attribute of software, not a premium feature that companies upsell to deep-pocketed government and corporate customers," Sens. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote. "Through its buying power, DOD's strategies and standards have the power to shape corporate strategies that result in more resilient cybersecurity services." Any serious shift in executive branch spending would take years, but Department of Homeland Security leaders say plans are in motion to add security guarantees and requirements to more government purchases -- an idea touted in the Cyber Safety Review Board's Microsoft report.

Amazon unveiled a new generative AI-powered version of its Alexa voice assistant at a packed event in September 2023, demonstrating how the digital assistant could engage in more natural conversation. However, nearly a year later, the updated Alexa has yet to be widely released, with former employees citing technical challenges and organizational dysfunction as key hurdles, Fortune reported Thursday. The magazine reports that the Alexa large language model lacks the necessary data and computing power to compete with rivals like OpenAI. Additionally, Amazon has prioritized AI development for its cloud computing unit, AWS, over Alexa, the report said. Despite a $4 billion investment in AI startup Anthropic, privacy concerns and internal politics have prevented Alexa's teams from fully leveraging Anthropic's technology.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Intercept: The Mozilla Foundation,the entity behind the web browser Firefox, is blocking various censorship circumvention add-ons for its browser, including ones specifically to help those in Russia bypass state censorship. The add-ons were blocked at the request of Russia's federal censorship agency, Roskomnadzor -- the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media -- according to a statement by Mozilla to The Intercept. "Following recent regulatory changes in Russia, we received persistent requests from Roskomnadzor demanding that five add-ons be removed from the Mozilla add-on store," a Mozilla spokesperson told The Intercept in response to a request for comment. "After careful consideration, we've temporarily restricted their availability within Russia. Recognizing the implications of these actions, we are closely evaluating our next steps while keeping in mind our local community."

Developers of digital tools designed to get around censorship began noticing recently that their Firefox add-ons were no longer available in Russia. On June 8, the developer of Censor Tracker, an add-on for bypassing internet censorship restrictions in Russia and other former Soviet countries, made a post on the Mozilla Foundation's discussion forums saying that their extension was unavailable to users in Russia. The developer of another add-on, Runet Censorship Bypass, which is specifically designed to bypass Roskomnadzor censorship, posted in the thread that their extension was also blocked. The developer said they did not receive any notification from Mozilla regarding the block. Two VPN add-ons, Planet VPN and FastProxy -- the latter explicitly designed for Russian users to bypass Russian censorship -- are also blocked. VPNs, or virtual private networks, are designed to obscure internet users' locations by routing users' traffic through servers in other countries. "It's a kind of unpleasant surprise because we thought the values of this corporation were very clear in terms of access to information, and its policy was somewhat different," said Stanislav Shakirov, the chief technical officer of Roskomsvoboda, a Russian open internet group. "And due to these values, it should not be so simple to comply with state censors and fulfill the requirements of laws that have little to do with common sense."

Mark Gurman, reporting for Bloomberg: When Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook and his top deputies this week unveiled a landmark arrangement with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT into the iPhone, iPad and Mac, they were mum on the financial terms. Left unanswered on Monday: which company is paying the other as part of a tight collaboration that has potentially lasting monetary benefits for both. But, according to people briefed on the matter, the partnership isn't expected to generate meaningful revenue for either party -- at least at the outset.

The arrangement includes weaving ChatGPT, a digital assistant that responds in plain terms to information requests, into Apple's Siri and new writing tools. Apple isn't paying OpenAI as part of the partnership, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the deal terms are private. Instead, Apple believes pushing OpenAI's brand and technology to hundreds of millions of its devices is of equal or greater value than monetary payments, these people said.

Following in the European Union's footsteps, Japan's parliament has enacted a law on Wednesday that will prohibit big tech from blocking third-party app stores. AppleInsider reports: The intention of the bill is that it will facilitate competition and reduce app prices. Japan's government reportedly believes that Apple and Google are a duopoly, and that they charge developers high fees that are then passed on to users. Big tech companies with App Stores will also prohibit companies from prioritizing their own services. Google is likely to be hit hardest by this. Violators will initially be fined up to 20% of the domestic revenue of the specific service that broke the law. The fee can increase to 30%, if the behavior continues.

The Japanese government's Fair Trade Commission (FTC) will choose which firms to apply it to. Companies that will be regulated will be required to submit compliance reports annually. While it hasn't been explicitly said that Apple and Google must comply, It seems certain that the announcement that they'll be held to the provisions is imminent. The Japan FTC isn't expected to add any Japanese firms to the list. The law likely won't take effect until the end of 2025.

In a new blog post, Adobe said it has updated its terms of service to clarify that it won't train AI on customers' work. The move comes after a week of backlash from users who feared that an update to Adobe's ToS would permit such actions. The clause was included in ToS sent to Creative Cloud Suite users, which claimed that Adobe "may access, view, or listen to your Content through both automated and manual methods -- using techniques such as machine learning in order to improve our Services and Software and the user experience." The Verge reports: The new terms of service are expected to roll out on June 18th and aim to better clarify what Adobe is permitted to do with its customers' work, according to Adobe's president of digital media, David Wadhwani. "We have never trained generative AI on our customer's content, we have never taken ownership of a customer's work, and we have never allowed access to customer content beyond what's legally required," Wadhwani said to The Verge. [...]

Adobe's chief product officer, Scott Belsky, acknowledged that the wording was "unclear" and that "trust and transparency couldn't be more crucial these days." Wadhwani says that the language used within Adobe's TOS was never intended to permit AI training on customers' work. "In retrospect, we should have modernized and clarified the terms of service sooner," Wadhwani says. "And we should have more proactively narrowed the terms to match what we actually do, and better explained what our legal requirements are."

"We feel very, very good about the process," Wadhwani said in regards to content moderation surrounding Adobe stock and Firefly training data but acknowledged it's "never going to be perfect." Wadhwani says that Adobe can remove content that violates its policies from Firefly's training data and that customers can opt out of automated systems designed to improve the company's service. Adobe said in its blog post that it recognizes "trust must be earned" and is taking on feedback to discuss the new changes. Greater transparency is a welcome change, but it's likely going to take some time to convince scorned creatives that it doesn't hold any ill intent. "We are determined to be a trusted partner for creators in the era ahead. We will work tirelessly to make it so."

New York has launched its mobile ID program, "giving residents the option to digitize their driver's license or non-driver ID," reports The Verge. From the report: Beginning today, the New York Mobile ID app is available from Apple's App Store and Google Play. The app can be used for identity verification at airports. A physical license, permit, or non-driver ID is required to activate a mobile ID; you'll need to take a photo of the front and back with your phone during the enrollment process. The news was announced during a media briefing at LaGuardia Airport on Tuesday that included New York's and Transportation Security Administration federal security director Robert Duffy, among other speakers. Their pitch is that mobile IDs "will revolutionize the way New Yorkers protect their identities and will significantly enhance the way they get through security at airports across the nation." State officials are also emphasizing that it's a voluntary option meant for convenience.

"When you offer your mobile ID to TSA or anyone else who accepts it, you are in full control of sharing that information. They can only see the information they request to see," Schroeder said. "If you only need to prove your age, you can withhold other information that a verifier doesn't need to see." The app is designed so that your phone remains in your possession at all times -- you should never freely hand a device over to law enforcement -- and shows a QR code that can be scanned to verify your identity. Any changes to your license status such as renewals or suspensions are automatically pushed to the mobile version, and the digital ID also mirrors data like whether you're an organ donor.

For now, acceptance of mobile IDs by businesses (and the police) is completely voluntary -- and there's no deadline in place for compliance -- so it's definitely too soon to start leaving your physical one at home. But bars and other small businesses can start accepting them immediately if they install the state's verifier app. The New York Mobile ID app can be used "at nearly 30 participating airports across the country including all terminals at LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy airports," according to a press release from Governor Kathy Hochul. New York joins a small list of states that have rolled out mobile driver's licenses, including Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, and Utah.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Internet service providers are again urging the Federal Communications Commission to impose new fees on Big Tech firms and use the money to subsidize broadband network deployment and affordability programs. If approved, the request would force Big Tech firms to pay into the FCC's Universal Service Fund (USF), which in turn distributes money to broadband providers. The request was made on June 6 by USTelecom, a lobby group for AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink/Lumen, and smaller telcos. USTelecom has made similar arguments before, but its latest request to the FCC argues that the recent death of a broadband discount program should spur the FCC to start extracting money from Big Tech.

"Through focusing on the Big Tech companies who benefit most from broadband connectivity, the Commission will fairly allocate the burden of sustaining USF," USTelecom wrote in the FCC filing last week. The USF spends about $8 billion a year. Phone companies must pay a percentage of their revenue into the fund, and telcos generally pass those fees on to consumers with a "Universal Service" line item on telephone bills. The money is directed back to the telco industry with programs like the Connect America Fund and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, which subsidize network construction in unserved and underserved areas. The USF also funds Lifeline program discounts for people with low incomes.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel hasn't stated any intention to expand USF contributions to Big Tech. Separately, she rejected calls to impose Universal Service fees on broadband, leaving phone service as the only source of USF revenue. The USTelecom filing came in response to the FCC asking for input on its latest analysis of competition in the communications marketplace. USTelecom says the USF is relevant to the proceeding because "the Universal Service Fund is critical for maintaining a competitive marketplace and an expanded contributions base is necessary to sustain the fund." No changes to the USF would be made in this proceeding, though USTelecom's comments could be addressed in the FCC's final report.

Microsoft has announced a new lineup of Xbox consoles, including an all-digital white Xbox Series X with a 1TB SSD, priced at $450. The company is also retiring the Carbon Black Series S, replacing it with a white version featuring a 1TB SSD and a $350 price point. Additionally, a new Xbox Series X with a disc drive and 2TB of storage will launch for $600.

The move comes as Microsoft continues to focus on digital gaming and subscription services like Game Pass, with reports suggesting that the PS5 is outselling Xbox Series consoles 2:1. The shift has led to minimal physical Xbox game sections in stores and some first-party titles, like Hellblade 2, not receiving physical releases. Despite rumors of a multiplatform approach, Microsoft maintains its commitment to its own gaming machines, promising a new "next-gen" console in the future, potentially utilizing generative-AI technology.

Further reading: Upcoming Games Include More Xbox Sequels - and a Medieval 'Doom'.

At a New York Yankees baseball game, one fan discovered its concession stand doesn't accept cash. "An employee directed him to a kiosk that could convert his greenbacks into plastic," reports the Wall Street Journal, where the fan, "fed $200 into the reverse ATM, which subtracted a $3.50 fee and spat out a debit card with a balance of $196.50." Paying with cash used to be a way to get a discount. These days it can often cost an extra $1 to $6 — the sort of transaction fees once limited to swiping a credit card or using an out-of-network ATM. Reverse ATMs like those at Yankee Stadium are now common at cashless venues and restaurants across the country as a way to cater to those who prefer paying in cash. People who want to pay their parking tickets, tolls, taxes or phone bills in cash, meanwhile, often learn that government agencies and businesses have outsourced that option to companies that usually charge a fee.

All that can amount to a penalty on the people who prefer paying cash. Though it is more common to buy things with cards and mobile devices, cash remains the third-most popular way to pay, accounting for 16% of all payments in 2023, according to the Federal Reserve. That's down 2 percentage points from the year before, continuing a steady decline that accelerated during the pandemic. "It's unbelievable that we actually have to tell retailers, 'This is U.S. currency and it's something that should be accepted,' " said Jonathan Alexander, executive director of the Consumer Choice in Payment Coalition, a group of businesses and nonprofits lobbying for the continued acceptance of cash.

There aren't federal laws that require businesses to accept cash. States like Colorado and Rhode Island and cities like New York banned cashless retail establishments after many stores shifted to card-only transactions to reduce the spread of Covid-19, speed up transactions and cut back on theft. In 2023, lawmakers in the House of Representatives and the Senate introduced bills requiring that businesses accept cash for all in-person purchases under $500, unless they provide devices like a reverse ATM that don't charge fees. The bills haven't passed.

Cashless businesses can be a burden for older or lower-income shoppers who are less likely to have access to digital payments. They also pose challenges for younger people who haven't yet set up credit cards or bank accounts.
The article includes the story of an 18-year-old who earned cash by babysitting, then went to a hockey game and "was charged a 50-cent fee after putting $20 into a reverse ATM...to order chicken nuggets and a bottle of water." (Others who prefer cash "say paper money is anonymous, helps them keep spending under control and is better for tips," the article adds noting that roughly six in 10 Americans use cash for at least some of their purchases, according to Pew Research Center.)

The makers of one "reverse ATM" tell the Journal that whether or not someone gets charged a fee actually depends on what state they're in — and on the preferences of the venue that installed the ATM machine.

Michael Geist Pig Hogger (Slashdot reader #10,379) reminds us that in Canadian law, "fair use" is called "fair dealing" — and that Canadian digital media users just enjoyed a huge win. Canadian user rights champion Michael Geist writes: The Federal Court has issued a landmark decision on copyright's anti-circumvention rules which concludes that digital locks should not trump fair dealing. Rather, the two must co-exist in harmony, leading to an interpretation that users can still rely on fair dealing even in cases involving those digital locks.

The decision could have enormous implications for libraries, education, and users more broadly as it seeks to restore the copyright balance in the digital world. The decision also importantly concludes that merely requiring a password does not meet the standard needed to qualify for copyright rules involving technological protection measures.
Canada's 2012 "Copyright Modernization Act" protected anti-copying technology from circumvention, Geist writes — and Blacklock's Reports had then "argued that allowing anyone other than original subscriber to access articles constituted copyright infringement." The court found that the Blacklock's legal language associated with its licensing was confusing and that fair dealing applied here as well...

Blacklock's position on this issue was straightforward: it argued that its content was protected by a password, that passwords constituted a form of technological protection measure, and that fair dealing does not apply in the context of circumvention. In other words, it argued that the act of circumvention (in this case of a password) was itself infringing and it could not be saved by fair dealing. The Federal Court disagreed on all points...

For years, many have argued for a specific exception to clarify that circumvention was permitted for fair dealing purposes, essentially making the case that users should not lose their fair dealing rights the moment a rights holder places a digital lock on their work. The Federal Court has concluded that the fair dealing rights have remained there all along and that the Copyright Act's anti-circumvention rules must be interpreted in a manner consistent with those rights.
"The case could still be appealed, but for now the court has restored a critical aspect of the copyright balance after more than a decade of uncertainty and concern."