The directive gives the inventor of a copy protection scheme control over the distribution of any device or software that attempts to circumvent that scheme.
Is this your interpretation of the following paragraph:
Firstly, rightholders have complete control over the manufacture, distribution etc. of devices designed to circumvent anti-copying devices. A more flexible solution in this regard would have carried a greater risk of abuse and piracy.
Then your interpretation is somewhat incomplete in its omission of intent and in its implication that Inventors Inc. will somewhow accrue ownership of all copy protection schemes, implemented or not.
What it actually says is that the owner of a copyright, say a book, who also delivers that book via a device with built in copy protection has rights over alternative devices created to read that book. You cannot create such a device without the permission of the author (of the book.)
This decision is taken to ensure the author of the book maintains rights over its distribution and disposition. This has always been the case:
(a) distribution: you've never been able to distribute an author's work without his or her permission. In this particular case, the author's permission is bound in the particular copy protection scheme that delivers the book. You cannot circumvent that permission. You cannot distribute that permission.
Just so everyone understands the intent.
Of course there is an arguement that runs
"we have no intention of circumventing that permission, we only want to hax0r." Which is a fair arguement. Unfortunately, the reality of the net is such that - and this is both an admission of the validity of the hax0r arguement as well as a condemnation of you Napster loving yahoos who are managing to erode all our rights with your interesting ideas of property - "A more flexible solution in this regard would have carried a greater risk of abuse and piracy."
Just so everyone understands where the other side is coming from.
(And, really, if you want to use your device to enjoy your copies, you can still do that.)
(b) disposition: you've never been able to make a play out of a novel without the novelist's permission. Now you cannot make a web page out of it or rot13 it in the belief that l33t is some kind of counter right.
Just so everyone understands why these new generation of copyright laws truly suck;
if you cannot respect other people's rights, you are forcing other people (the rightholders) to diminish yours.
Described as the European Union's DMCA,
An objectionable description since, unlike the EU directive, the DMCA practically gives copyright holders the power to right their own warrants.