The CDR claims that:
“as it stands, the UK implementation of the European Copyright Directive will hinder research into cryptography (in contravention of the express intent of the Directive itself), make criminal current common practices of the music industry, give software companies unwarrantied control over the creation of software products interoperable with their own, and provide an inadequate and entirely impractical mechanism for beneficiaries of the Directive’s exceptions to obtain copyright works protected by technological measures.”
The critique suggests that the consultation paper issued by the UK Patent Office should define the term “academic research”, so that immunity provisions regarding cryptography would not only apply merely to bona fide academics, but also to amateur cryptographers and generally to “everyone publishing information in the furtherance of research into cryptography.”
The CDR also claims that copy-protection measures could be “a significant inconvenience to professional music studios”. It recommends amendments to the language of the proposal, so that broadcasters and software developers would be assured of “freedom from prosecution”.