Windows Media Player user license extensions

[Derek Fawcus]

On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 01:16:13PM +0100, Martin Keegan wrote:
> 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. 

  [ OK - I guess there's no point in further follow up,  but... ]

Surely s50c applies even without a licence.  i.e. as a lawful owner of a
copy of a work sold,  purchased,  and used in the UK, without any explicit
licence, s50c gives me a defence for the required copying.

  [ See the email about some software I own that has no explicit licence ]

Therefore any other work for which I've paid,  and legally imported should
also be useable in the absense of any explicit licence.

DF