software european-union
Does the recent EU court ruling allowing decompilation of lawfully purchased software for bugfixes permit removing game DRM if it slows down the game?
<p>The EU court recently ruled that the EU copyright directive:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program is entitled to decompile all or part of that program in order to correct errors affecting its operation, including where the correction consists in disabling a function that is affecting the proper operation of the application of which that program forms a part.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Source: <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&amp;docid=247056&amp;pageIndex=0&amp;doclang=en&amp;mode=req&amp;dir=&amp;occ=first&amp;part=1&amp;cid=6413406" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&amp;docid=247056&amp;pageIndex=0&amp;doclang=en&amp;mode=req&amp;dir=&amp;occ=first&amp;part=1&amp;cid=6413406</a></p>
<p>The way I interpret this ruling is that if a video game has an invasive DRM integrated into it which slows down the performance of the game (which can arguably be called &quot;an error affecting operation&quot;) like Denuvo, the person who bought this game in the EU is legally allowed to remove this DRM from the product. Thing is, I'm not a lawyer, so this interpretation may not be accurate at all.</p>
<p>Does this EU court ruling effectively allow paying customers to remove a DRM product which is slowing down their game?</p>

<h2>Not on its face</h2>
<p>DRM are a deliberate “feature” of the software and cannot therefore be considered an “error” that the user is entitled to “correct”.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Does this EU court ruling effectively allow paying customers to remove a DRM product which is slowing down their game?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It depends on whether (1) the DRM <em>materially</em> impairs the performance of the game, (2) there is no alternative [practical] solution, and (3) the extent of the modification does not go beyond what is necessary. Regarding elements (2) and (3) see paras. 46 and 74 of the ruling, respectively.</p>
<p>As for element (1), materiality would be hard to establish if the DRM's impact happens only during startup. That is because usually the startup phase of a program execution is a very small portion of the entire time a program runs. By contrast, if the effects persist in that the DRM recurrently --and notoriously-- slows down the gaming session, the purchaser's position seems more meritorious.</p>
<p>The DRM serves the provider's interest only, whereas para. 49 reflects that Article 6 of Directive 91/250 is exclusively intended to advance the purchaser's interest. In the context you outline, the purchaser's interest is the video game from a user/enjoyment perspective: the lawful purchaser of the program is entitled &quot;<em>to use it in accordance with its intended purpose</em>&quot;, <em>Id</em>. From the lawful purchaser's standpoint, the DRM impairs (i.e., causes errors in) the interoperability between the purchased game and the platform on which it runs and/or the network.</p>
