Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
Possessing and using a DRM-stripping tool for non-commercial use is not caught by that section.
Creating one for money, yes.
Creating one otherwise, no.
Distributing one for money, yes.
Distributing one otherwise, no.
Providing information about one, yes.
Possessing one for commercial purposes, yes.
Possessing one otherwise, no.
Using one, no.
The actual announcement:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/press/pr...e-20121220.htm
The most relevant portion: |
The section you've quoted isn't the one I was talking about. My reading is that DRM stripping is illegal due to 296ZA:
Quote:
296ZACircumvention of technological measures
(1)This section applies where—
(a)effective technological measures have been applied to a copyright work other than a computer program; and
(b)a person (B) does anything which circumvents those measures knowing, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he is pursuing that objective.
(2)This section does not apply where a person, for the purposes of research into cryptography, does anything which circumvents effective technological measures unless in so doing, or in issuing information derived from that research, he affects prejudicially the rights of the copyright owner.
(3)The following persons have the same rights against B as a copyright owner has in respect of an infringement of copyright—
(a)a person—
(i)issuing to the public copies of, or
(ii)communicating to the public,the work to which effective technological measures have been applied; and
(b)the copyright owner or his exclusive licensee, if he is not the person specified in paragraph (a).
|
That seems to make it clear that removing DRM is not allowed, as the publisher and copyright owner has the same rights against someone who has stripped DRM as they do against someone who has infringed their copyright.
I any case, I certainly agree with Harry that it's of little actual importance, as I can't see any action ever being taken against someone stripping DRM for personal use.
/JB