[riazrizvi]

Copyright infringement is generally a criminal act if the act of copying provides an expectation of any type of monetary gain, where monetary is broadly defined to be anything of value [1][2].

So removing the DRM on something that you already have a license to consume? Not a copyright infringement crime. Sending a copy of the DRM free product to a friend who hasn't bought a copyrighted version? Yes a copyright infringement crime. Removing the DRM that limits your ability to consume the product unless you buy a specially licensed version of the product, when you haven't paid for it, yes a copyright crime.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Electronic_Theft_Act

[jandrese]

Removing the DRM is a DMCA violation though, even if you have no intent to distribute. The doctrine of first sale was gutted for digital content because Congress is in the pocket of big companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...

[riazrizvi]

When the Learning Disabilities Association complained that the DMCA prohibited people with disabilities from removing DRM to enable their products to work with assistive tools, no change was made to the law as it was deemed the law does not prohibit DRM removal in this case. The Entertainment Software Association stated [1]:

> In addition, DIYAbility’s initial comments do not provide sufficient information to know whether what it would like to do would actually violate Section 1201, rather than, for example, being permitted by Section 1201(f).

Here's a link to section 1201(f) of the Circumvention of copyright protection systems references reverse engineering [2].

[1] https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=COLC-...

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

[jandrese]

So you won’t know until the MPAA is suing you for a trillion dollars because you wanted to watch your DVD on your phone.