> "Implementing the spec as designed" is not an excuse for putative bad
> behavior here.
There's nothing bad about the behavior. Please elaborate if you disagree.
> If some portion of a spec called for program behavior that
> was racist or sexist, or would intentionally damage the user's software,
> computer or person, you surely would be willing to disregard that portion
> of the spec?
You are comparing apples to oranges. There's is nothing malicious or harmful by setting a flag that says "I don't want this to be able to be printed, or text to be copyable."
There are legitimate reasons for restricting the copying and printing of documents. I work for a medical device manufacturer and we restrict the copying of text and printing of PDFs of our standard operating procedures. These are not restricted to prevent fair use by our employees but to make sure that there are not printed copies of older documents that are filed away and used by people for procedures. Such use of old documents can and have caused much expensive trouble with the FDA in the past. If an employee needs an older version to print, or needs text from an older version of a document, they can contact the document owner to get a copy of the content they require.
In this case, restricting the copying and printing enforces policies in our company that is intended to minimize costly mistakes.
> In this case, the decision to be made is whether a spec clause that will
> to some degree restrict the fair use activities of less-knowledgeable
> users is a serious enough problem to warrant deliberately violating the
No fair use rights are being affected. You can still take a screenshot of the content. You can still type in the text that you cannot copy. As I stated before, fair use does not mean convenience.