[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by jbjb

The section you've quoted isn't the one I was talking about. My reading is that DRM stripping is illegal due to 296ZA:

296ZA doesn't actually create an offence, though. It just expands the list of people who have (and so can enforce) rights if an offence has been committed.
296ZB does create an offence, and it does not catch personal use:

296ZBDevices and services designed to circumvent technological measures

(1)A person commits an offence if he—

-- (a)manufactures for sale or hire, or

-- (b)imports otherwise than for his private and domestic use, or

-- (c)in the course of a business—

---- (i)sells or lets for hire, or

---- (ii)offers or exposes for sale or hire, or

---- (iii)advertises for sale or hire, or

---- (iv)possesses, or

---- (v)distributes, or

-- (d)distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner,

any device, product or component which is primarily designed, produced, or adapted for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of effective technological measures.

(2)A person commits an offence if he provides, promotes, advertises or markets—

-- (a)in the course of a business, or

-- (b)otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner,

a service the purpose of which is to enable or facilitate the circumvention of effective technological measures.

Edit: Currently it is a rather irrelevant point, as the purpose of disabling the DRM is to make a copy (to your calibre library, to dropbox, to a tablet, whatever), and those copies are illegal. When that changes this distinction will matter.