It's like the difference between trespassing vs. breaking and entering. If you have to turn a doorknob, it's trespassing. But picking a lock is breaking and entering. If you can read the plain text in Notepad, I don't think it counts. From http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2009dltr003.h...

The anti-circumvention provisions of §1201 were intended to "encourage[] technological solutions" to piracy by providing legal sanctions against the circumvention of such technology. Realizing that "what may be encrypted or scrambled often may be decrypted or unscrambled," Congress thought it necessary to provide an alternate form of protection to those willing to invest in (and implement) "effective" technological measures. Section 1201 "does not mandate the adoption of any . . . technological protection;" it merely "takes those technological measures that win adoption because of their efficacy and confers [statutory] protection on them." If, as Congress suggested, the circumvention of a technological measure designed to protect a copyrighted work truly is "the electronic equivalent of breaking into a locked room in order to obtain a copy of a book," providing a legal remedy if the lock fails seems entirely reasonable and appropriate.

This comment is encrypted with ROT-26. By reading it you have cracked it and are breaking the law.

Isn't violating copyright(except for fair use) already illegal? If you photocopy a book fully and give it your friend, you're already violating copyright and can receive a takedown notice[1], regardless of the anti-decryption clause of the DMCA.

[1] A different provision of the DMCA

IIRC/IANAL, violating the copyright without commercial intent (you are not selling it) is still a civil law violation although DMCA takedown provisions still apply. Breaking DRM elevates it to a criminal charge.

I think that is the case, but correct me if I am wrong, it has been awhile since I studied this.

If only there were some way to anonymously release software...

Releasing it is not the issue for the user, possession of the software is.

If only there was some constitutional amendment that promised people the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches".

This means: if you have some circumvention device whose presence cannot be detected from outside your home: too bad for the government. They can't do anything about it.