[H-GEN] GPL question

[David Starkoff]

On 07/01/2004, at 6:16 PM, David Starkoff wrote:

> On 07/01/2004, at 10:45 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
>> In Australia, there's an exception for copies that aren't "in material
>> form", which may apply to this, but can't be relied upon (and which
>> might be ruled out by the above case history); and there're some 
>> explicit
>> exceptions for running programs.
>
> Microsoft Corp v Business Boost Pty Ltd, on its facts, effectively 
> said that copying a program from a hard disk into RAM was a 
> reproduction in material form: [2000] FCA 1651 at [12]-[19], 
> <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2000/1651.html>.  
> This can be contrasted with the decision in Kabushiki Kaisha Sony 
> Computer Entertainment v Stevens [2002] FCA 906 at [126]-[150], 
> <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/906.html>, 
> more popularly known as the PlayStation mod-chipping case.

I should have added that Sony v Stevens was overturned on appeal last 
year: Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment v Stevens [2003] 
FCAFC 157, 
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2003/157.html>.  On 
appeal the judges also considered the issue of whether running a 
PlayStation game (on the evidence adduced in that case) amounted to a 
reproduction in a material form.  Justices French and Lindgren agreed 
with Justice Sackville at first instance.  Justice Finkelstein 
dissented on this point.

Mr Stevens has appealed to the High Court of Australia.  The High 
Court, as far as I know, has not decided whether it will hear the case.

David.