The MGE case is not the sort of victory you (and Ars) present it to be. It's actually remarkably narrow and doesn't gut the worst of the anti-circumvention provisions.
In simple terms, imagine a box with a padlock on it. The DMCA says, roughly:
* You're not allowed to examine the lock to figure out how to make a key for it.
* You're not allowed to make a key for the lock.
* If you somehow get a key for the lock, you're not allowed to use it.
* If you somehow get a key for the lock, you're not allowed to give it to anyone else.
* If you somehow get a key for the lock, you're not allowed to tell anyone else information about it that might let them make their own key.
The MGE case tried to claim, basically, that once someone else has already unlocked the box, it would be a DMCA violation to look inside. And the court of appeals just said "no, that's not something the DMCA forbids" while leaving all the other bits (you're not allowed to have/make/distribute/etc. the key) in place.
In simple terms, imagine a box with a padlock on it. The DMCA says, roughly:
* You're not allowed to examine the lock to figure out how to make a key for it.
* You're not allowed to make a key for the lock.
* If you somehow get a key for the lock, you're not allowed to use it.
* If you somehow get a key for the lock, you're not allowed to give it to anyone else.
* If you somehow get a key for the lock, you're not allowed to tell anyone else information about it that might let them make their own key.
The MGE case tried to claim, basically, that once someone else has already unlocked the box, it would be a DMCA violation to look inside. And the court of appeals just said "no, that's not something the DMCA forbids" while leaving all the other bits (you're not allowed to have/make/distribute/etc. the key) in place.