Windows Media Player user license extensions

[Derek Fawcus]

 [ Well ther's mnot a lot of cypto discussion at the moment,  so I'll 
   still perpetuate this thread ]

On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 03:18:01PM +0100, Martin Keegan wrote:
> 
> Sony v Channel was about s296 of the Copyright (etc) Act, which concerns
> circumvention devices.
> 
> The position as regards use of software obtained via CD is the normal one:
> if you're copying it (which you generally have to do in order to use it)
> then you are liable for infringement unless you have a defence, and
> there's a built-in defence for any lawful user of the software under s50C.
> This avoids the preposterous position of having to have a licence for the
> copy of the software which subsists in the RAM or in virtual memory.
> 
> The only reason this came up at all was that Channel was trying to
> demonstrate lawful uses for the Messiah chip, and one of the classes of
> such use involved persons *not* afforded the defence under s50C (private
> importers).

OK - so why is a private importer not covered by s50c?

From my reading of the act I am allowed to privately import works,
and use them.  I've paid for it,  and the copy was not an infringing
copy,  then I have a legitimate copy [1].  As such I am the lawful
user of that copy of that work.

Given that a computer program is a classed as a literary work
(and I didn't spot anything saying they aren't treated with respect to
import and use in a different manner to other litarary works),
surely an imported computer program would be classed as a lawful copy?

Then I should be a lawful user,  and as such have recourse to the
defense in s50c?

DF

[1]  Mind I may not be able to dispose of it due to the rubbish about
     regional copyright exhaustion instead of global exhaustion.