Section 29 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2000 protects the technology that protects copyright.
Section 29(1) — the unlawful acts
(a) the manufacture or importation for sale or rental of any device or means specifically designed or adapted to circumvent any device or means intended to prevent or restrict reproduction of a work, a sound recording or a broadcast, or to impair the quality of copies made;
(b) the manufacture or importation for sale or rental of any device or means that is susceptible to enable or assist the reception of an encrypted program, which is broadcast or otherwise communicated to the public, including by satellite, by those who are not entitled to receive the program;
(c) the removal or alteration of any electronic rights management information without authority;
(d) the distribution, import for distribution, broadcasting, communication to the public or making available to the public, without authority, of works, performances, sound recordings or broadcasts, knowing, or having reason to know, that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) — devices
Both paragraphs are directed at the manufacture or importation for sale or rental of the device. They do not, in terms, prohibit a person from using such a device, or from possessing one.
The Act attacks the supply chain — the makers and importers who put circumvention tools and unauthorised decoders into the market — rather than individual users. That is a deliberate choice, and it makes enforcement practicable.
| (a) — copy protection | (b) — encrypted programmes | |
|---|---|---|
| Target | Devices specifically designed or adapted to circumvent protection against reproduction, or to impair copy quality | Devices susceptible to enable or assist reception of an encrypted programme by those not entitled |
| Test | Specifically designed or adapted — a purpose test | Susceptible to enable or assist — a capability test, and wider |
| Protects | Owners of copyright and neighbouring rights against copying | Broadcasters and pay-television services |
| Conduct caught | Manufacture or importation for sale or rental | |
Paragraph (a) requires the device to be specifically designed or adapted for circumvention — so a general-purpose tool is not caught merely because it can be misused.
Paragraph (b) is broader: a device susceptible to enable or assist unauthorised reception. It expressly covers reception including by satellite, and the phrase “broadcast or otherwise communicated to the public” picks up both wireless and wired delivery, consistently with the definitions of broadcast and communication to the public in section 2.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) — rights management information
Any information which identifies the author, the work, the performer, the performance, the producer of the sound recording, the broadcaster, the broadcast, the owner of any right under this Act, the information about the terms and conditions of use, and any numbers or codes representing such information — that is attached to a copy of a work, a fixed performance, a sound recording or a fixed broadcast, or appears in connection with the broadcasting, communication to the public or making available to the public of any of them.
Paragraph (c) is the act of removing or altering the information without authority. No knowledge requirement is stated — the act itself, done without authority, is unlawful.
Paragraph (d) catches downstream dealing: distributing, importing for distribution, broadcasting, communicating to the public or making available to the public — knowing, or having reason to know, that the information has been removed or altered without authority.
“Having reason to know” is an objective standard. A distributor who receives files with the metadata stripped out, and asks no questions, is exposed. It also bears on section 27(3), which limits damages only where the infringer had no justifiable reason to know they were infringing.
Note how wide the definition is. It covers not only the author’s name but the terms and conditions of use — so stripping licence terms embedded in a file is within paragraph (c).
Section 29(2) — assimilation to infringement
In the application of sections 26, 27 and 28, any illicit device and means referred to in subsection (1), and any copy from which rights management information has been removed or in which it has been altered, shall be assimilated to infringing copies of works, and any illicit act referred to in subsection (1) shall be treated as an infringement of copyright or neighbouring rights to which the civil remedies and criminal sanctions provided for in sections 26, 27 and 28 are applicable.
The devices are treated as infringing copies. So under section 26(1)(b) they may be impounded, and under section 27(4) the Court shall order their destruction or other reasonable disposition — subject to the good faith third party protection in section 27(5).
Copies with stripped rights management information are treated the same way.
The acts are treated as infringements, so:
- Injunctions are available under section 26(1)(a), and the search and seizure provisions of the Criminal Code Act (Chapter 262) apply under section 26(2);
- Damages under section 27, fixed by reference to the importance of the material, the moral prejudice and the infringer’s profits; and
- Criminal liability under section 28, where the act is done wilfully or by gross negligence and for profit-making purposes — up to ten years’ imprisonment or K100,000, or both.
And under section 26(3), the customs provisions on illegal goods apply to articles and implements used in relation to infringements — which reaches imported circumvention devices and decoders at the border.
What section 29 does not do
No prohibition on the act of circumvention itself. Paragraphs (a) and (b) address making and importing devices, not using them. A person who circumvents protection to make a copy is answerable for the copy, under section 6(1)(a) — and, note, section 8(2)(e) withholds the private copying exception where reproduction would conflict with a normal exploitation of the work.
No exception for interoperability or research. Unlike some jurisdictions, the Act contains no carve-out permitting circumvention for security testing, encryption research or interoperability — and section 14 permits only copies necessary for use or for archiving.
No provision on intermediaries. Section 9 protects temporary copies made in lawful transmission, but there is no general safe harbour, and no notice-and-takedown scheme, in this Act.
Sources
- Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2000 — ss 2, 6, 8, 9, 14, 24, 26–29
- Criminal Code Act (Chapter 262)
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2000 and check for later amendments. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.