Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
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.
|
That's not how I read it. It's not just expanding the list - you'll notice that the copyright holder is listed in the additional list, which wouldn't be necessary if the list was intended to be an extension to the existing list (which already contains the copyright holder).
My reading is that it is saying that removing DRM is equivalent to copyright infringement, and we know that copyright infringement is illegal.
The other sections of the act which have been discussed in this thread refer to the creation, distribution etc. of DRM stripping tools. 296ZA is the one which applies to the actual act of removing the DRM.
My understanding of why the other sections explicitly say "commits an offence", whereas 296ZA doesn't is that the others define distribution etc. for profit of these tools as a *criminal* offence, whereas DRM removal results in a civil liability to the copyright holder and others (as listed).
As always, IANAL, so my interpretation could be utter rubbish, but that's the way it reads to me.
/JB