An interesting point was raised in the comments section of my posting on Real's software that converts music files with Real's Helix DRM to Apple's FairPlay DRM (What Real's Hacking of FairPlay Doesn't Do). Carl Witty and Derek Slater discuss the question of whether converting from Real's Helix DRM to Apple's FairPlay DRM might be construed as a violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA (17 USC 1201). Derek claims that Real probably has the right to do such conversions under its licensing of Helix.

This is a question I've thought a lot about and the answer would have interesting repercussions (Who Can Sue Who Under the DMCA?). I agree with Slater. The licensing for Helix has to trump any claimed injury by copyright holders who use Helix DRM. Otherwise, the DRM is no longer controlled by Real, but by the copyright holders. Who would license DRM knowing that copyright holders would not be bound by the terms of the license?

However, Seth Finkelstein disagrees (and so does the Second Circuit). In the MPAA DeCSS cases, the movie studios were permitted to bring the action despite the fact that they had zero rights in CSS according to the licenses they signed with the DVDCCA, which manages the rights to CSS. The DMCA gives a very broad right to sue: "[a]ny person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States court for such violation." If converting from Helix DRM to FairPlay DRM harms the copyright holder (because FairPlay has been cracked, for example), shouldn't they be able to sue Real under terms of the DMCA?

It's a question I would love to see the courts deal with.