(1)
In sections 296ZA to 296ZE, “technological measures” are any technology, device or component which is designed, in the normal course of its operation, to protect a copyright work other than a computer program.
(2)
Such measures are “effective” if the use of the work is controlled by the copyright owner through—
(a)an access control or protection process such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work, or
(b)a copy control mechanism,
which achieves the intended protection.
(3)In this section, the reference to—
(a)protection of a work is to the prevention or restriction of acts that are not authorised by the copyright owner of that work and are restricted by copyright; and
(b)use of a work does not extend to any use of the work that is outside the scope of the acts restricted by copyright.
(4)Expressions used in sections 296ZA to 296ZEA which are defined for the purposes of Part 1 of this Act (copyright) have the same meaning as in that Part.
Cases considering section 296ZF 4
[2008] EWCA Crim 1324 · 24 June 2008Interprets
The court construed the definition of effective technological measures narrowly. It requires a measure that directly protects against copyright-restricted acts, rather than one which merely discourages infringement by commercial means (see paras [21]-[35]).
A technological measure must be designed, in normal operation, to protect a copyright work. The court held that this requires a direct technological or mechanical barrier to infringement (see paras [13]-[14]; [21]-[35]).
The access, protection and copy-control mechanisms in the subsection informed the court’s conclusion that the measure must control use directly and achieve the intended protection (see paras [7]; [35]).
The subsection informed the construction of protection and use for the effective-technological-measure definition. It confined protection to unauthorised acts within copyright’s restricted acts (see paras [7]; [13]; [35]).
Protection means preventing or restricting acts which are both unauthorised and restricted by copyright. This wording did not extend the provision to a general commercial obstacle to infringement (see paras [13]-[14]; [31]-[35]).
[2021] EWHC 410 (Ch) · 25 February 2021Interprets
The court treated YouTube’s cipher and key routine as a technological measure designed to protect copyright works. The measure therefore fell within the statutory framework for technological protection measures (see para [28]).
The court held that the cipher and key routine controlled access to copyright works through encryption and was an effective technological measure because it was operated in conjunction with the copyright owner (see para [28]).
[2010] EWHC 1932 (Ch) · 28 July 2010Interprets
Interprets the associated definition of technological measures and effectiveness. The court treated encryption, scrambling and related protection arrangements as capable of constituting effective technological measures (see paras [11]; [14]-[18]; [24]).
Defines technological measures as technology, devices or components designed in normal operation to protect a copyright work other than a computer program. The court applied that definition to Nintendo’s boot-up software, data and communication arrangements (see paras [11]; [24]-[25]).
Interprets effectiveness by reference to access-control, protection, encryption, scrambling and copy-control mechanisms achieving the intended protection. The Nintendo arrangements qualified because incorrect or absent data prevented the protected communication and copying process (see paras [11]; [14]-[18]; [24]).
Applies the reference to encryption, scrambling and other transformation as supporting the conclusion that Nintendo’s key data and related communication arrangements were effective technological measures (see paras [14]-[15]; [24]).
What each judgment says about section 296ZF is in the case-law panel in the full Act.