-Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was
- trying
-to restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only
- restricting
-the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book read
-aloud. But the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would Adobe
-thus agree that a consumer was free to use software to hack around the
-restrictions built into the eBook Reader? If some company (call it
-Elcomsoft) developed a program to disable the technological
- protection
-built into an Adobe eBook so that a blind person, say, could use a
-computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe agree that such a use of
-an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer because the answer,
-however absurd it might seem, is no.
+Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was trying
+to restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only
+restricting the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book
+read aloud. But the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would
+Adobe thus agree that a consumer was free to use software to hack
+around the restrictions built into the eBook Reader? If some company
+(call it Elcomsoft) developed a program to disable the technological
+protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a blind person, say,
+could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe agree that
+such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer because
+the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.