Slashdot Mirror

9. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. For more information, see www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights. You may not
      work around any technical limitations in the software;
      reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
      make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
      publish the software for others to copy;
      rent, lease or lend the software; or
      use the software for commercial software hosting services

Reverse engineering is allowed under Article 6 [of the European Copyright Directive], but only for the single purpose of producing an interoperable program (rather than a competing program).

That copies and phonorecords are defined in 17 USC 101 as being material objects, which means that no physical object in Russia can be moved to the US via the Internet, making section 602 a red herring.

I'm not getting into the US law bunfight, but I will comment that UK law (which I understand more, but by no means completely) takes the opposite view, namely that

Section 5A: Sound recordings

5A.-(1) In this Part "sound recording" means-

• (a) a recording of sounds, from which the sounds may be reproduced, or
• (b) a recording of the whole or any part of a literary, dramatic or musical work, from which sounds reproducing the work or part may be produced,

regardless of the medium on which the recording is made or the method by which the sounds are reproduced or produced.

(Emphasis mine)

So I think that the importing of potentially infringing materials would count as true importing into the UK by virtue of (a) the recording was in Russia, (b) it's now in the UK, so at some point the recording crossed the border.

As for whether importing infringing materials is illegal; it is - with one important exception. If the material is for private and domestic use, and you don't sell it, or copy it further, it is not a case of secondary infringement (Section 22 of the CDPA). Note that this section applies, even if you know that the material is infringing in the country in which it was made. I guess that the logic goes that the UK isn't responsible for enforcing copyright in other countries, and we only care about grey market dealing when someone in the UK is trying to get money from it. Note, however, that it is an offence to bring in counterfeit goods into the UK, but that's about trademark violation, not copyright.

So, my current belief (always subject to review) is that AllOfMP3 purchases in the UK are currently legal, if done for personal use. The ethical/moral argument is another one entirely. I keep hearing the "Russian Mafia" label getting thrown around, but would really appreciate some evidence of this being pushed my way. Unless, the label simply means that all Russian businesses are Mafia controlled.

Just my 2p.

We do actually, as codified in the 2005 amendment to the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, section Part 1, Chapter 3, Section 29 "Research and private study."

The same act, Part 5, Chapter 48, section 296ZE "Remedy where effective technological measures prevent permitted acts", allows action to be taken where DRM blocks acts permitted under law.

We do actually, as codified in the 2005 amendment to the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, section Part 1, Chapter 3, Section 29 "Research and private study."

The same act, Part 5, Chapter 48, section 296ZE "Remedy where effective technological measures prevent permitted acts", allows action to be taken where DRM blocks acts permitted under law.

Fair dealing has a very limited scope in UK Copyright law though. It only covers copying and some distribution for research and journalism purposes. See Sections 29&30 of the CDPA

That's the language all English speaking jurisdictions use. So why choose such an emotionally laden word like violation ??

Australia
PATENTS ACT 1990 (Cth)
Chapter 11--Infringement
http://www.scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/54 5/top.htm

USA
CHAPTER 28--INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode35/us c_sup_01_35_10_III_20_28.html

UK
s60 - s71 Infringement
http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/index.htm

Really? Is it not covered by this:

Section 28A: Making of temporary copies.

Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable -

(a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or

(b) a lawful use of the work;

and which has no independent economic significance.

(taken from here

Try s50B.

What I would say to you is if you are going to enter into a debate that involves law, you should understand how it works. Come back when you have legal training, otherwise most of what you say is irrelevant and useless.

Section 3: Inventive step

3.- An invention shall be taken to involve an inventive step if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, having regard to any matter which forms part of the state of the art by virtue only ofsection 2(2) above (and disregarding section 2(3) above).

No, this is not always true, see the case of Visa condoms being denied, even though it's nothing to do with credit cards.
--

Reverse Engineering in the UK is illegal

The law disagrees with you