[Gllug] UK DMCA

[Dylan]

On Sunday 12 October 2003 12:57 pm, Davies Sue wrote:
> I'll do my best but I haven't done this is a long time and as we were
> always taught law can only be truly interpreted by the courts.
>
> This is a correction for a definition in another section (296).  If someone
> has applied a 'technical device' to software to prevent you from copying it
> and you make, sell, let, advertise for sale or hire for commercial purposes
> any 'thing' that is designed to breach that device so that others can copy
> it AND that you know or have reason to believe that the 'thing' will be
> used to make infringing copies you will be liable.
>
> It looks like they're trying to extend the chain of people they can go
> after for copyright infringements.  Not just the copier but also the person
> who made it possible for the copier to do his work.
>
> There will be statutory defences for this offence elsewhere in the act.  I
> think the important thing are the words commercial purposes.  It looks at
> first glance as though you could give away such a thing and not be liable
> because there would be no commercial purpose to giving it away.
>
> I would also imagine that if you were to put a statement in your license
> that the 'thing' was not to be used to allow software to be illegally
> copied you would probably also be in the clear.
>
> Hope that's OK but I'd get other interpretations too

It also seems to specifically allow "permitted use" (i.e. such things as 
accademic uses like teaching materials, quoting etc); exceptions for 
legitimate research (it specifically refers to cryptographic research); and 
uses which can be described as personal and domestic - like backups and maybe 
even defeating protection to use media on unsupported systems.

The section 25 stuff also seems more focussed on preventing the /removal/ of 
DRM information, rather than the defeat of such a system for personal (i.e. 
non commercial) uses.

Importantly, it specifically states that the infringed copyright holder or 
licencee etc... must be able to demonstrate that the infringement has been to 
their detriment. So, just as I can make a cassette copy of a CD to play in my 
car stereo, or photocopy a page from a book for a school handout, the same 
should be true here also - neither case is to the detriment of the copyright 
holder since in the first case I have already paid for the CD, and in the 
second it is being used for a legitimate 'permitted use' under the concept of 
'fair dealings'.

There is no hint at a requirement to incorporate DRM or copy protection, 
either by 'technological device' or licence. Indeed, my gut feeling is that 
DRM in general would fall foul of current EU copyright structures.

<caveat>
IANAL - my experience of copyright regulations comes from issues relating to 
accademic work and theatrical performance.
</caveat>

Dylan

-- 
Sweet moderation
Heart of this nation
Desert us not
We are between the wars
- Billy Bragg


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug