View Single Post
Old 11-18-2012, 03:15 PM   #59
Andrew H.
Grand Master of Flowers
Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,193
Karma: 8233324
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdurrant View Post
Michael Geist also says "Under Canadian law, it is not an infringement to possess tools or software that can be used to circumvent digital locks and liability is limited to actual damages in non-commercial cases."

That's from section 41.1 (3): "The owner of the copyright in a work, a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or a sound recording in respect of which paragraph (1)(a) has been contravened may not elect under section 38.1 to recover statutory damages from an individual who contravened that paragraph only for his or her own private purposes."

So any case brought in Canada for removing DRM can only recover actual damages. Which are zero in the case of DRM removal from purchased ebooks for personal use.
Grant's comment is not quite correct. Breaking DRM for non-commercial purposes doesn't mean that you are breaking it for personal use. I.e., if you broke DRM and uploaded movies or whatever to a "sharing" site, you would be breaking DRM for a nonpersonal, noncommercial purpose, and thus presumably liable for statutory damages.
Andrew H. is offline   Reply With Quote