Slashdot Mirror

Yes, it would.

This clause redefines a "child" for the purposes of the Protection of Children Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act") as a person under 18 years, rather than under 16 years, of age.

his clause redefines a "child" for the purposes of the Protection of Children Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act") as a person under 18 years, rather than under 16 years, of age. This change means the offences under that Act of taking, making, permitting to take, distributing, showing, possessing with intent to distribute, and advertising indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children will now also be applicable where the photographs concerned are of children of 16 or 17 years of age. The same change applies to the offence of possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child at section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (section 160(4) applies the 1978 Act definition of "child").

If you produce any original work it is copyright. That's it. No need to mail it to yourself. If you take a photograph of anything in public (but not in the public domain) then that is copyright. If you take a photograph of someone the photo is still copyright but you would need a model release form signed by them to ensure you had full rights of commercial explotation. (The BBC has this agreement on its website for anyone who wants to give them license free images.) If you take a photograph for someone the contract makes it clear whether those commissioning the work own the copyright or the photographer retains the copyright. If you are employed full time to take photographs with their equipment and their materials - they own the copyright.

The content of the photograph is irrelevant unless it contains an image of anything that is still copyright - the original copyright owners rights are infringed if you publish it - they will sue, you would be stupid to defend it. They will charge you two grand plus lawyers fees.
All of this is covered by the UK instrument of law:
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_2#pt1-ch1-pb1-l1g1
where photographs and their contents are clearly defined:
Artistic works
(1) In this Part "artistic work" means--
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,
*
"photograph" means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film;
I am fairly certain that this is in accordance with the European Union Copyright laws since the EU has pursued a policy of uniformity in laws of this type.

IANAL but it's interesting that they are conducting this research in England, at the very least this would require a change in the EULA that MSFT could be deemed an "authorised user" of the computer, from the Computer Misuse Act 1990:

3 Unauthorised modification of computer material

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if--

(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and

(b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.

At the very least, this would suggest to me that I would be perfectly within my rights to opt out of such a system.

IAALS and you are mistaken.

You might want to look at the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 107 (note that it is split over two pages).

See also the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002, especially section 1.

IAALS and you are mistaken.

You might want to look at the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 107 (note that it is split over two pages).

See also the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002, especially section 1.

It may be of interest that 'no comment' can be used in British courts as a symptom of guilt. The right to silence still exists but it is now explicitly stated in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that courts and juries may draw inferences from a suspect's silence in custody or in court (Sections 34 to 39). http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/U kpga_19940033_en_4.htm#mdiv34

One aspect of English law that I thought existed, is that the people should be protected from the government (particularly from self-incrimination).

The right did exist, emphasis on the past tense. Then in 2000, the RIP Act gave the government the right to force you to hand over all your passwords and encryption keys and incriminate yourself. In addition, you're not allowed to tell anyone that you are under investigation and that your keys have been compromised.

And as of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, they can put you in jail for a month without even charging you with any crime. So any time they feel like it they can jail you and root around (pun intended) on your hard drive for a month, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, legally speaking.

... although Echelon is a UKUSA agreement. In the UK, nearly all internet traffic is tapped by the Echelon network up the road at GCHQ. Every email address will have a record showing how many times you've said "bomb" and God knows what else. Up to 1 million citizens will have files that link to their email addresses, bank account numbers etc.

In the UK, of course, the powers that be weren't satisfied and so RIPA was born.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) allows the government to access a person's electronic communications in a very unrestricted manner, thus infringing in the privacy of their correspondance in a manner many would not tolerate regarding their postal communications. The act:

• Enables the government to demand that an ISP provides access to a customer's communications in secret;
• Enables mass surveillance of communications in transit;
• Enables the government to demand ISPs fit equipment to facilitate surveillance;
• Enables the government to demand that someone hands over keys to protected information;
• Allows the government to monitor people's internet activities;
• Prevents the existence of interception warrants and any data collected with them from being revealed in court

In other words, unlimited mass surveillance of the internet.

This info is derived from the excellent Magna Carta Plus site which details how British freedoms have been destroyed over the last 10 years.

Not content with that, our Dear Leader is creating a way of linking together all our records on British civil (and corporate) databases, by numbering us under the Identity Cards Bill. This will create a database on citizens' way of life which is 20x more intrusive than anything else the planet has ever seen.

Furthermore, British citizens be will required to buy a "Government Approved" identity to use public services, be allowed to travel in or out of the country, maybe even to vote.

Because the Government has successfully kept such legislation low profile, only around 1 in 20 citizens are aware of it. Those who are aware are terrified, especially as the Govt keeps threatening to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights.

I thought that was why the UK introduced the RIP act (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm )? Could they just demand that the person comes up with the keys -- if they don't, hold them through the RIP act and brute-force them, if they do -- then they've either got evidence or the innocent person can go free?

It seems that they are just using this as an excuse to hold someone indefinately?

All you need to do is look at the http://hmso.gov.uk/Hmso site.

People don't realise in the UK that their liberties are being eroded, unless it happens to them.

For example, I took part in a protest where I held a banner, leaning against a wall. I am now being charged with agrevated trespass due to my behaviour supposedly intending to stop that person from being able to do their work.

People do not have rights in the UK, USA or anywhere else, they are a myth.

The current government, you mean? The one that wants biometric National ID cards tied to passports?

I don't see how you can claim that the Blair government hasn't introduced anything as oppressive as the Patriot Act when the Civil Contingencies Act exists, along with the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001, which, unlike the original Patriot Act, does not contain sunset provisions (provisions which the Bush administration may convince Congress to overturn, unfortunately). And which, since the government has been returned, is unlikely to be changed or repealed, even if Tony Blair is tossed on his behind and replaced by Gordon Brown.

Heck, maybe you can give this a read, and see if you can find anything that the author asserts which isn't true.

I lived in the UK for a bit under a year, finishing out my military service. It was incredible to me to hear Brits aghast abotu the evils of the Patriot Act when they were under far more draconian laws, with cameras on every street corner, an Official Secrets Act (which exists to protect Officials, not secrets, as they said in Yes, Prime Minister), police taking DNA samples from anyone arrested and a Home Secretary who seemed to be trying very hard to make the Bush administration seem reasonable and protective of civil liberties.

Of course, if you point this out, you're purveying anti-British propaganda. Just like anyone who criticizes the Bush admin hates America.

The UK is just ahead of us in the US in the turn back to totalitarianism. We Yanks should look at the UK if we want to see what our future will look like.

And, for those who don't think the Brits love being screwed by their government, that government was returned this week. With a reduced majority because of Iraq (not civil liberties, Iraq) and anger among hardcore Labour supporters that Tony Blair isn't socialist enough.

The current government, you mean? The one that wants biometric National ID cards tied to passports?

I don't see how you can claim that the Blair government hasn't introduced anything as oppressive as the Patriot Act when the Civil Contingencies Act exists, along with the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001, which, unlike the original Patriot Act, does not contain sunset provisions (provisions which the Bush administration may convince Congress to overturn, unfortunately). And which, since the government has been returned, is unlikely to be changed or repealed, even if Tony Blair is tossed on his behind and replaced by Gordon Brown.

Heck, maybe you can give this a read, and see if you can find anything that the author asserts which isn't true.

I lived in the UK for a bit under a year, finishing out my military service. It was incredible to me to hear Brits aghast abotu the evils of the Patriot Act when they were under far more draconian laws, with cameras on every street corner, an Official Secrets Act (which exists to protect Officials, not secrets, as they said in Yes, Prime Minister), police taking DNA samples from anyone arrested and a Home Secretary who seemed to be trying very hard to make the Bush administration seem reasonable and protective of civil liberties.

Of course, if you point this out, you're purveying anti-British propaganda. Just like anyone who criticizes the Bush admin hates America.

The UK is just ahead of us in the US in the turn back to totalitarianism. We Yanks should look at the UK if we want to see what our future will look like.

And, for those who don't think the Brits love being screwed by their government, that government was returned this week. With a reduced majority because of Iraq (not civil liberties, Iraq) and anger among hardcore Labour supporters that Tony Blair isn't socialist enough.

This link shows that The Register is trademarked in the UK.

"The Register" is a UK-based company, and therefore doesn't have to deal with US trademark law (for the most part). The link above is their trademark application with the UK trademark office.

According to the FAQ, the use of "TM" in the UK is acceptable without having registered the trademark with the registrar. And according to the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is illegal to use the "Registered" trade mark symbol (the R with a circle) unless it is, in fact, registered.

So The Register is officially allowed to use the "registered" symbol based on their trademarked status. And of course it makes for a great double entendre when used at the end of an article.

So no, you're not daft. But now you're probably a bit better informed. ;-)

Personal copying is criminal if carried out "to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright". (Section 107 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.)

The UK introduced criminal trespass in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Meaning of "television receiver"
9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

His television isn't installed (i.e. tuned, or connected to an aerial) or "used for the purpose of receiving any television programme service" so it's not a television receiver in the eyes of the law.

A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

[Any] apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

[Any] apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

It could have all been much worse, the Communications Act very nearly opened the door too far, by allowing businesses to own a large share of all the UK media. Thankfully it was changed keeping possible market anyone & others from owning a majority of the media.

Murdoch (from what I can recall) owns something approaching 90% of the Australian newspapers. But he had to become a US citizen to buy into the US media

I personally enjoy living in the UK, being able to watch TV without adverts, independent news broadcasting & seeing the informative programmes that have already been mentioned above. Long may it continue!!

Which copyright law did you get that from?

Not quite corrent [sic]

if you give me a copy of a work, I can back it up, compile it, modify it, otherwise tinker with it, and so on.

As I'm in the UK and you seem to be, I'll assume we are talking UK law, in which case:

• compiling is not allowed
• copying into memory is not allowed
• modification is not usually allowed
• otherwise tinkering with it probably falls into one of the above

See http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html for more info. The only thing I can't do is distribute it, or works derived from it.

• Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (the main one)
• The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996
• The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003
• The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995
• I can't be bothered listing them all--I think I've got a list on my other PC if you really want or just search on HMSO--it gets you over 995 hits.

Not quite corrent [sic]

if you give me a copy of a work, I can back it up, compile it, modify it, otherwise tinker with it, and so on.

As I'm in the UK and you seem to be, I'll assume we are talking UK law, in which case:

• compiling is not allowed
• copying into memory is not allowed
• modification is not usually allowed
• otherwise tinkering with it probably falls into one of the above

See http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html for more info. The only thing I can't do is distribute it, or works derived from it.

• Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (the main one)
• The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996
• The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003
• The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995
• I can't be bothered listing them all--I think I've got a list on my other PC if you really want or just search on HMSO--it gets you over 995 hits.

Not quite corrent [sic]

if you give me a copy of a work, I can back it up, compile it, modify it, otherwise tinker with it, and so on.

As I'm in the UK and you seem to be, I'll assume we are talking UK law, in which case:

• compiling is not allowed
• copying into memory is not allowed
• modification is not usually allowed
• otherwise tinkering with it probably falls into one of the above

See http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html for more info. The only thing I can't do is distribute it, or works derived from it.

• Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (the main one)
• The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996
• The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003
• The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995
• I can't be bothered listing them all--I think I've got a list on my other PC if you really want or just search on HMSO--it gets you over 995 hits.

Not quite corrent [sic]

if you give me a copy of a work, I can back it up, compile it, modify it, otherwise tinker with it, and so on.

As I'm in the UK and you seem to be, I'll assume we are talking UK law, in which case:

• compiling is not allowed
• copying into memory is not allowed
• modification is not usually allowed
• otherwise tinkering with it probably falls into one of the above

See http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html for more info. The only thing I can't do is distribute it, or works derived from it.

• Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (the main one)
• The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996
• The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003
• The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995
• I can't be bothered listing them all--I think I've got a list on my other PC if you really want or just search on HMSO--it gets you over 995 hits.

Ummm... huh? Could you reference some of these laws, to start with?

I'll use the Data Protection Act (1998) from the UK, as an example here. You can view it at: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm. The short version of this is that to hold personal information, you must be registered, and you must register how you intend to use that information. You also have to provide that information on request, to the person whose information it is, but that's not relevant here...

The thing is, I don't see how an IP address is personal information. It doesn't identify you, it identifies a computer system (with dynamic IPs, it only identifies them at a particular point in time). This is comparable to having a house address without the name of anyone in the house; this information is trivially available (lets start with the websites of estate agents, and work from there).

Now, in the UK, they would need to be registered to associate a person with that IP address, but I can't seriously see them being blocked from doing so. The only real stumbling block is actually getting that information from the person's ISP, as I believe we've managed to avoid having our own DMCA so far (can anyone confirm/deny?).

Certainly, I can't see it making the slightest difference why they're recording the IP address. Let me put this another way; I have server logs of someone trying to break into the server. These contain IP address; why would that be illegal for me to hold? I have no idea who this person is...

Really?

This like all Malware is a very clearly against the law in the UK and most of Europe. The UK Computer Misuse Act makes it a criminal offense for a person to

"causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer"
Computer Misuse Act 1990

Depending on what the Company does with the data obtained they are likely also be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 which allows a £5,000 fine for each person offended against.

Similar legislation exists throughout Europe as part of the Information Society Policy Framework agreement.

This like all Malware is a very clearly against the law in the UK and most of Europe. The UK Computer Misuse Act makes it a criminal offense for a person to

"causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer"
Computer Misuse Act 1990

Depending on what the Company does with the data obtained they are likely also be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 which allows a £5,000 fine for each person offended against.

Similar legislation exists throughout Europe as part of the Information Society Policy Framework agreement.

"I vaguely remember there's a country where it is illegal to obstruct surveillance by way of encryption. And you may be required to hand over all your passwords..."

You may be thinking of the UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. In short you are required to hand over any passwords to encrypted information:

(a) in the interests of national security;

(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or

(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.

(relevent section)

If you fail to provide the password, you face two years in prison. You are deemed to be in posesion of the password provided "the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

In short, for the first time in UK law, an act was passed in which you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise. Just how you prove that you really have forgotten a password, and aren't just pretending, is beyond me...

"I vaguely remember there's a country where it is illegal to obstruct surveillance by way of encryption. And you may be required to hand over all your passwords..."

You may be thinking of the UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. In short you are required to hand over any passwords to encrypted information:

(a) in the interests of national security;

(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or

(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.

(relevent section)

If you fail to provide the password, you face two years in prison. You are deemed to be in posesion of the password provided "the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

In short, for the first time in UK law, an act was passed in which you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise. Just how you prove that you really have forgotten a password, and aren't just pretending, is beyond me...

What about simply using formal English? Well I would argue that many modern laws (at least in the UK) are already written in precisely this way.

Take a look at the Computer Misuse Act. It's clear, unambiguous and uses a minimum of legal mumbo jumbo. So what are we arguing about again?

And no; I'm not a lawyer.

Anyone storing data about you must conform to the Data Protection Act, where it explicitly states "it is immaterial that it is intended to be so processed or to form part of such a system only after being transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area". Your data IS protected because you are a UK citizen. The Data Protection Registrar takes any breaches very seriously and can be contacted via their web site.

Phillip.

Well, Peter Pan is copyright in the UK *forever*.

As to their case against Disney: Peter Pan is currently copyright in the US (where one presumes that the prequel was made) and the EU (where the original work was created), so the only real defence would be a question of timing issues relating to the expiry of the original copyright and extension thereof by EU and US law.

From the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1998: Reprographic copying by educational establishments of passages from published works

From this http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1993/U kpga_19930012_en_2.htm
(b) a substance possessing radioactivity which is wholly or partly attributable to a process of nuclear fission or other process of subjecting a substance to bombardment by neutrons or to ionising radiations, not being a process occurring in the course of nature, or in consequence of the disposal of radioactive waste, or by way of contamination in the course of the application of a process to some other substance.

This tells me that coffee is not radioactive waste, nor radioactive material as per this legislation as potassium is not listed on Schedule 1
Now if you can find that coffee contains a substance on schedule 1 in such quantities as to fall under section (a) of "meaning of radioactive material" then I will have to agree with you that coffee as waste is radioactive waste. Until and unless that time, I have to say that you were misled in your statement that coffee is a radioactive material/waste, according to British law.

From this http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1993/U kpga_19930012_en_2.htm
(b) a substance possessing radioactivity which is wholly or partly attributable to a process of nuclear fission or other process of subjecting a substance to bombardment by neutrons or to ionising radiations, not being a process occurring in the course of nature, or in consequence of the disposal of radioactive waste, or by way of contamination in the course of the application of a process to some other substance.

This tells me that coffee is not radioactive waste, nor radioactive material as per this legislation as potassium is not listed on Schedule 1
Now if you can find that coffee contains a substance on schedule 1 in such quantities as to fall under section (a) of "meaning of radioactive material" then I will have to agree with you that coffee as waste is radioactive waste. Until and unless that time, I have to say that you were misled in your statement that coffee is a radioactive material/waste, according to British law.

Specific activity (picocuries of potassium-40 per gram of potassium) = 818 pCi/g (see here)

and the UK Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (c. 12) says you can't put radioactive waste in to landfills. I accept that they aren't really going to stop you but technically you shouldn't!

See also this article on radiological problems in food and other goods.

Ian

The constitution never implied patents (or copyrights) were a property right any more than slaves on the plantation were. This property propaganda is a bunch of crap made up by lawyers and the RIAA, and has absolutely no solid foundation in common law or constitutional law at all.

I suggest you talk to one of the biggest proponents of copyright reform, Lawrence Lessig, who states that "copyrighted material is, by definintion, private property", in his blog. Alternatively, you could back up your supposition (which I think is nonsensical, but hey, I wouldn't mind being wrong on this one).

Indeed, there is a plethora of common law dating back to the 1700's in England on copyright, in particular, defining it as property (Lockean natural law; the Blackstonian legal distinction was usurped by the common law).

You are unwittingly correct that it is "made up by lawyers"; it is a constructive property, just as corporations are constructive people, with effectively the same rights and liabilities therein. Unfortunately, you fail to establish any distinction between constructed and "real" property, in a society under rule of law.

In fact the constitution clearly states that copyrights and patents are a government mandated monopoly that is to be short term - genuine rights don't have an expiration date.

What's a "genuine" right? Your property rights effectively end, thanks to perpetuities legislation, ~81 years after you die (save trusts & fancy legal wrangling with big money), to prevent "ruling from the grave", so to speak. This makes your existing property rights no less tangible or "genuine", does it? Indeed, copy-rights in some jurisdictions vastly outlive real property rights.

There are transient rights, such as freedom of association, free speech, and the like, but I suspect these end when you die, though they may be vicariously preserved (to no personal avail, I imagine). I am left wondering what rights you are talking about.

Bear in mind that we are talking about "just compensation" for the government depriving you of rights to copyright or patent (or trademark) profit and enjoyment. In essence, this is legally analogous to depriving you of real property rights. Analogy to transient rights is superfluous; this is property, whether constructed by lawyers or not, it is recognized by courts of competent jurisdiction. That right can be taken away by government, but constitutionally the government must compensate the owners.

I've worked with RIPA http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm

* all users arn't monitored.

* logs are kept as with most ISPs, however the length of time they are kept for varies.

* if designated people request information, you have to provide it. - no court orders etc.

* there are additional snooping features, which are quite ugly for all involved.

it is getting worse though. with the DPA http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm you can legally hand over data to help prevent deaths, harm to people or crimes. You didn't have to hand it over if you didn't think it was justified, without a court order. This was good, but the protection it provided is being eroded.

I've worked with RIPA http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm

* all users arn't monitored.

* logs are kept as with most ISPs, however the length of time they are kept for varies.

* if designated people request information, you have to provide it. - no court orders etc.

* there are additional snooping features, which are quite ugly for all involved.

it is getting worse though. with the DPA http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm you can legally hand over data to help prevent deaths, harm to people or crimes. You didn't have to hand it over if you didn't think it was justified, without a court order. This was good, but the protection it provided is being eroded.

Have problems with the concept of things which happened before you were born?

Hmm... let's see. I have a perfectly valid point that two different things are, in fact, different, and you characterise me as a child having a tantrum. I think you are the one being childish, and if it really matters, which it shouldn't (ad-hominem attacks are worthless), I am an adult.

Imagine how impressed I am with the opinion of some political appointees in a land far far away.

It's an opinion that makes sense, unlike equating copyright infringement with theft. Since you are the one asserting that two different things are actually the same, the burden of proof is upon you to show that. Here, I'll even make it easy for you - show me where the UK theft laws cover copyright. Oh wait, they don't. Because copyright infringement isn't theft.

In the UK, it seems that one needs a licence to be a security consultant. Private Security Industry Act 2001.

I'm pretty damn sure this would be in breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 specifically Section 3, Unauthorised modification of computer material.

I think there's similar legislation in most EU countries, but I'm not sure.

It's a criminal act btw, meaning Crown prosecution and a jail sentence, not a civil matter. Not a problem if the chap doesn't plan on entering the EU.

It really doesn't matter if somebody is in the process of pirating his software. That's a seperate offence and doesn't give him license to commit unauthorised modification of a computers data.... and I can sense the pedantics gathering in the wings, but it doesn't really matter how you want to split hairs on what is unauthorised modification of data, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts get to decide that.

I'm pretty damn sure this would be in breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 specifically Section 3, Unauthorised modification of computer material.

I think there's similar legislation in most EU countries, but I'm not sure.

It's a criminal act btw, meaning Crown prosecution and a jail sentence, not a civil matter. Not a problem if the chap doesn't plan on entering the EU.

It really doesn't matter if somebody is in the process of pirating his software. That's a seperate offence and doesn't give him license to commit unauthorised modification of a computers data.... and I can sense the pedantics gathering in the wings, but it doesn't really matter how you want to split hairs on what is unauthorised modification of data, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts get to decide that.

In the UK, would this not count as driving without due care and attention, given that you already are banned from using mobile phones in a vehicle?

- Did you see Mark Thomas last night?
- No, was it any good?
- Yeah, I videoed it if you want to borrow it.

"Got a link for that"

Full text of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 -- probably contains answers for lots of questions in this thread.

Regards the original question, look for phrases like "a person who is in possession at a relevant time of both the protected information and a means of obtaining access to the information and of disclosing it in an intelligible form"

Under the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004, a computer used to receive TV broadcasts over the Internet is a TV receiver and requires a licence. However, this doesn't apply to receiving video on demand, which is what the BBC currently provides. Also the definition of TV set does not include general purpose computers so purchase of a computer does not have to be notified by the retailer to TV Licensing.

Under the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004, a computer used to receive TV broadcasts over the Internet is a TV receiver and requires a licence. However, this doesn't apply to receiving video on demand, which is what the BBC currently provides. Also the definition of TV set does not include general purpose computers so purchase of a computer does not have to be notified by the retailer to TV Licensing.