Windows Media Player user license extensions

[Matthew Astley]

On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 03:18:01PM +0100, Martin Keegan wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Matthew Astley wrote:

> > [wrong stuff]
> No, that's not what Sony v Channel said at all.

*sigh* Why am I not surprised? I don't suppose there's a "Law for
dummies" book or similar reference, anywhere?


> 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.

OK, with you so far.


> This avoids the preposterous position of having to have a licence
> for the copy

*pause* Licence _for_ the copy or licence to _make_ the copy? [1]
*play*

> of the software which subsists in the RAM or in virtual memory.

To require a licence to copy to hard disk (install) seems reasonable,
because the installed copy can be used independently of the original
and may be copied further.

Why is a a licence required for the copy of a Playstation game that
goes into temporary storage for processing (RAM or VM), but not for
the temporary copy of a book that's made on the back of my retina and
in my brain as I read it?

CDs that install to disk are strange beasts, IMHO. Software that runs
straight from CD seems much more like a book or music (sheet, tape,
CD).


> 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).

(and "s50C requires that one be a lawful user", you said later.)

Why is private import not legal? Is this related to the global vs.
local copyright exhaustion?


> > To anyone not trying to pin some restrictive licence to a set of
> > compliant users, it should be obvious that this legal precedent is
> > just a nasty side-effect of a court doing what it considered right
> > by Sony, in helping them stem the flow of software the naughty
> > pirates produce.
> 
> That's a travesty of the court's approach to Sony. The court was
> certainly not trying to "do what it considered right" by Sony!

Well I apologise for this. As you can see I'm groping in the dark
here.


> > The need for a licence to "copy" the software into memory is just
> > wrong, according to what Derek writes of the copyright act. The
> > copying into memory must surely be covered by whatever principle "fair
> > use" is called over here.
> 
> It isn't, and it would be an unmitigated disaster if it were. Fair
> use implies some sort of consideration of the economic effect on the
> rightholder of copying his stuff. That should never be under
> consideration in the case of transitory digital copies in RAM.

OK I think this is a jargon violation on my part. 8-)

  fair use: unlicensed copying of a part to make a derivative work

?

I think I intended to refer to some exception - s50C would appear to
be that exception.

So, would it be fair to say that if the copy which you wish to run was
made legally then you may run it without further ado? Does "legally"
just require a licence to have been granted, or are there other
complications?

Ooh, I think I've stitched the ends together:

> > To proceed to tell people that a licence _is_ needed to run
> > software you legally own seems to me misguided. To propagate these
> > views as if they are true will result in pressure to amend the
> > Copyright Act to reflect the new view - ie. saying it too often
> > will make it happen.
> > 
> > Worse still, even as I ask you not to do this I find I'm doing it
> > myself. "sofware you legally own"? What law does this stem from?
> 
> Yeah, I was just about to point that out :)


> > If Alice gives me a copy of a CD which _she_ made without a
> > licence from the copyright holder, who has committed the crime? It
> > appears to be Alice.
> 
> No, copyright violation is *not* criminal unless you're doing quite
> a lot of it.

Sorry, jargon violation again. s/crime/Bad Thing/.

I suppose this relates to my last question. If I obtain a copy of a
work from Alice, which was make without a licence, then I may not use
the s50C exception, but I may possess the work.

If it is a book I may read it. It it is music I may play it. If it is
software I may NOT run it.

Please debug this statement. 8-)

> > What law makes mere possession of this copy illegal? How does this
> > change when the copy is encrypted, or stated to be a backup?
> > 
> > By listening to or running this illegally made copy, which law am I
> > violating?
> 
> Well, if it's in a digital format, then copying it into RAM may violate
> the copyright again ... 

> Mk

Thanks for explaining!

I wasn't sure how this relates to *crypto* policy, but then again with
TCPA looming it makes more sense. 8-/


Matthew  #8-)
-- 
[1] Pedantic, yes. The difference isn't relevant there AFAICS, but
    where the copy is "as installed on disk", for example, maybe it

is. If a copy is _made_ under licence it may continue to exist even
after the licence has gone away for some reason .. whether it's legal
to then "copy" to RAM for processing or continue to take backups would
be another question.

If a licence is required _for_ the copy then you would be required to
remove the copy. Is there provision for this? Is there any analogy
with books, whereby you can be required to destroy a book for some
reason?