Windows Media Player user license extensions

[Martin Keegan]

On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Derek Fawcus wrote:

> > 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?

s50C requires that one be a lawful user of the work to benefit from the
exemption.
 
> >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.

I think the Court's reading of the Act was (and this has been criticised
by some lawyers) that, yes, you're not infringing the copyright in a work
when you import it privately, but once you've got it into the country,
there's no way you could have a licence to copy it into your computer's
RAM, since the licence you've paid for is granted by and in the territory
from which you imported it, and can't extend to your copying activity in
the UK. 

Mk