SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT v PAUL OWEN & ORS (2002)

[Tom Thomson]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Barker" <jeremy.barker@btinternet.com>
To: <ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Sent: 16 May 2002 19:42
Subject: Re: SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT v PAUL OWEN & ORS (2002)



> It isn't quite that simple - you can't read section 50C in isolation.
>
> Section 50C refers to a "lawful user" and the rights in section 50C are
only
> available to a lawful user.  The term "lawful user" is defined in
subsection
> 50A(2) - "For the purposes of this section and sections 50B and 50C a
person
> is a lawful user of a computer program if (whether under a licence to do
any
> acts restricted by the copyright in the program or otherwise), he has a
right
> to use the program."
>
> Section 50C(1)(b) further says that the section 50C(1) right to copy or
adapt
> is only available if it "is not prohibited under any term or condition
of an
> agreement regulating the circumstances in which his use is lawful."
This
> agreement will normally be the licence agreement for use of the program.
>
> In other words you can only do the things section 50C allows if you have
a
> license and the license does explicitly prohibit you doing them.

No, if there is no such agreement section 50C(1)(b) is irrelevant and the
"or otherwise" in section 50A(2) takes effect.  Section 50A(2) cannot be
read as requiring that a licence exists, since it explicitly provides that
"or otherwise" phrase.

Further, even if a licence exists so that 50C(1)(b) is applicable, any act
of copying or adapting is still permitted as provided by 50C(1) unless
that licence explicitly prohibits that act.  It is not necessary for the
licence to give explicit permission - something which 50C(1) permits is
permitted under a licence which soes not give that explicit permission
unless the licence specfically excludes it.

IANAL, of course, but the language seems very clear.