Gilham v R

Gilham v R

The playing of a counterfeit DVD on a games console involves the copying of substantial parts of copyright works, specifically the artistic works displayed on the screen, and such copying is sufficient to constitute infringement under the CDPA. The sale of modchips designed to circumvent technological measures protecting these works is therefore an offence under section 296ZB. The judge's direction on 'substantial' was not materially misleading, and the appellant was rightly convicted.

Parties
Appellant: Christopher Paul Gilham; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Technological Protection Measures, Money Laundering, Substantial Copying, Circumvention Devices
Intellectual Property Criminal Law Copyright Infringement Technological Protection Measures Money Laundering Substantial Copying Circumvention Devices

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Paul Gilham

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether playing a counterfeit DVD involves substantial copying of a copyright work under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of 'substantial' copying
  3. 3 Whether the sale of modchips constitutes an offence under section 296ZB of the CDPA

Ratio Decidendi

The playing of a counterfeit DVD on a games console involves the copying of substantial parts of copyright works, specifically the artistic works displayed on the screen, and such copying is sufficient to constitute infringement under the CDPA. The sale of modchips designed to circumvent technological measures protecting these works is therefore an offence under section 296ZB. The judge's direction on 'substantial' was not materially misleading, and the appellant was rightly convicted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld