Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Ubuntu Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/ubuntu-development/)
-   -   Patent issues with automatic codec installation (http://www.linux-archive.org/ubuntu-development/11620-patent-issues-automatic-codec-installation.html)

Chris Jones 12-03-2007 10:36 PM

Patent issues with automatic codec installation
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:35:30 +1300
> From: "Aaron Whitehouse" <lists@whitehouse.org.nz>
> Subject: Patent issues with automatic codec installation (was:
> Automatic installation of DVD CSS support)
> To: "Christofer C. Bell" <christofer.c.bell@gmail.com>
> Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> Message-ID:
> <196947f20711301635g6cfc8a33v8ac04faf4bd817d0@mail .gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> > > I would like to draw attention to a proposal that I think is very
> > > important for Ubuntu as a desktop deistribution: the possibility of
> > > automatically enabling CSS decryption support for DVDs, like it is already
> > > possible to retrieve support for certain audio/video endcodings automatically.
>
> > Please read the comments in the bug you linked to for explanation as
> > to why this will not happen.
>
> As the comments in the bug state, the reason DeCSS is not included is
> (I imagine) to avoid violating the DMCA.
>
> The more that I think about the automatic codec installation of
> Ubuntu, the more that I am concerned that the current approach places
> the distribution in murky legal territory. Allowing (encouraging?) a
> user to install patent-violating codecs may not infringe the DMCA or
> copyright, but it still may not be the best idea. Think of Napster
> being sued for allowing others to infringe copyright.
>
> A large number of people respond to this by saying that they live in
> Europe and that their country does not enforce software-only patents.
> That doesn't matter much, considering that a patent-holder would bring
> any proceedings in countries that did enforce their patents.
>
> Fedora handles the situation with
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureCodecBuddy - which
> allows users to purchase non-infringing codecs from Fluendo.
> http://www.fluendo.com/press/releases/PR-2007-01.html
>
> Perhaps a good compromise would be to default to Codec Buddy and have
> a button for "Multiverse Codecs". When the user clicks the button,
> they could be presented with a message *actively discouraging* them
> from using the multiverse versions and highlighting that they are
> likely to break the law if they do so.
>
> In an attempt to disarm critics, I ask you to read:
> http://www.linux.com/articles/59830
> "On the patent question, Fluendo's official stance is that it opposes
> software patents, but that in areas where they are the law, it has no
> choice but to obey the statutes. Perhaps more importantly, customers
> have no choice either. Some critics of Fluendo's plugin products are
> quick to point out that there are freely available, often GPLed
> libraries that decode the same formats. That is, however, irrelevant:
> the non-free formats are non-free not because of the license on the
> source code, but because of the patents on the format.
>
> Wherever possible, Fluendo encourages its customers to use patent-free
> formats. "In GStreamer we try to make sure Ogg and Dirac support
> everything that is possible to do with the non-free formats. So at the
> end of the day we feel that by moving people toward Linux and now
> Solaris, and to using an open source framework like GStreamer which
> has top-notch support for free codecs, we do more good than evil for
> the goal of removing the plight of patented codecs, even if our way of
> achieving that is by offering those non-free codecs for sale."
> [...]
> Non-free media formats are fundamentally at odds with free software,
> not because of source code licensing but because of patents. Ignoring
> that fact can mean taking a serious legal risk. As Dave Neary of Wengo
> so concisely expressed it on his personal blog: "People should realise
> that proprietary codecs are just that -- proprietary. And if they cost
> money, that's a great way to realise.""
>
> I am in no way associated with Fluendo (except for being a participant
> in the codecs beta testing). I am simply concerned that Ubuntu makes
> it too easy to infringe patents.
>
> As I raised on the mailing list and in a bug report:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/173161
> users often end up infringing patents that they never even use because
> the codecs are distributed in composite packages.
>
> Regards,
>
> Aaron
>
> --
> FSF Associate Member: 5632
> http://www.fsf.org


Since when should linux users have to pay for codecs?
Bloody hell. Are we heading down the Windows path?

I would never in my life pay for any codecs? Why? Simply because a user
shouldn't have to.

C'mon, seriously, some common sense required I think.


--
Chris Jones <chrisjones@comcen.com.au>


--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

"Cody A.W. Somerville" 12-04-2007 12:29 AM

Patent issues with automatic codec installation
 
I dunno about you but I would figure that adhering to local law would be common sense. So, the next time you wish to send such a nonconstructive and inflaming post, why not do us a favor and send it to /dev/null instead.


Anyhow, It seems to me that he is proposing we make it easy for people to adhere to local law like Fedora does with Codec buddy which seems more than reasonable to me.

Thanks,

Cody A.W. Somerville


On 12/3/07, Chris Jones <chrisjones@comcen.com.au> wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:35:30 +1300
> From: "Aaron Whitehouse" <lists@whitehouse.org.nz
>
> Subject: Patent issues with automatic codec installation (was:
>****** Automatic****** installation of DVD CSS support)
> To: "Christofer C. Bell" <
christofer.c.bell@gmail.com>
> Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> Message-ID:
>****** <
196947f20711301635g6cfc8a33v8ac04faf4bd817d0@mail. gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> > > I would like to draw attention to a proposal that I think is very
> > > important for Ubuntu as a desktop deistribution: the possibility of

> > > automatically enabling CSS decryption support for DVDs, like it is already
> > > possible to retrieve support for certain audio/video endcodings automatically.
>
> > Please read the comments in the bug you linked to for explanation as

> > to why this will not happen.
>
> As the comments in the bug state, the reason DeCSS is not included is
> (I imagine) to avoid violating the DMCA.
>
> The more that I think about the automatic codec installation of

> Ubuntu, the more that I am concerned that the current approach places
> the distribution in murky legal territory. Allowing (encouraging?) a
> user to install patent-violating codecs may not infringe the DMCA or

> copyright, but it still may not be the best idea. Think of Napster
> being sued for allowing others to infringe copyright.
>
> A large number of people respond to this by saying that they live in

> Europe and that their country does not enforce software-only patents.
> That doesn't matter much, considering that a patent-holder would bring
> any proceedings in countries that did enforce their patents.

>
> Fedora handles the situation with
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureCodecBuddy - which
> allows users to purchase non-infringing codecs from Fluendo.

> http://www.fluendo.com/press/releases/PR-2007-01.html
>
> Perhaps a good compromise would be to default to Codec Buddy and have
> a button for "Multiverse Codecs". When the user clicks the button,

> they could be presented with a message *actively discouraging* them
> from using the multiverse versions and highlighting that they are
> likely to break the law if they do so.
>
> In an attempt to disarm critics, I ask you to read:

> http://www.linux.com/articles/59830
> "On the patent question, Fluendo's official stance is that it opposes
> software patents, but that in areas where they are the law, it has no

> choice but to obey the statutes. Perhaps more importantly, customers
> have no choice either. Some critics of Fluendo's plugin products are
> quick to point out that there are freely available, often GPLed

> libraries that decode the same formats. That is, however, irrelevant:
> the non-free formats are non-free not because of the license on the
> source code, but because of the patents on the format.

>
> Wherever possible, Fluendo encourages its customers to use patent-free
> formats. "In GStreamer we try to make sure Ogg and Dirac support
> everything that is possible to do with the non-free formats. So at the

> end of the day we feel that by moving people toward Linux and now
> Solaris, and to using an open source framework like GStreamer which
> has top-notch support for free codecs, we do more good than evil for

> the goal of removing the plight of patented codecs, even if our way of
> achieving that is by offering those non-free codecs for sale."
> [...]
> Non-free media formats are fundamentally at odds with free software,

> not because of source code licensing but because of patents. Ignoring
> that fact can mean taking a serious legal risk. As Dave Neary of Wengo
> so concisely expressed it on his personal blog: "People should realise

> that proprietary codecs are just that -- proprietary. And if they cost
> money, that's a great way to realise.""
>
> I am in no way associated with Fluendo (except for being a participant

> in the codecs beta testing). I am simply concerned that Ubuntu makes
> it too easy to infringe patents.
>
> As I raised on the mailing list and in a bug report:
>
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/173161
> users often end up infringing patents that they never even use because
> the codecs are distributed in composite packages.
>
> Regards,
>

> Aaron
>
> --
> FSF Associate Member: 5632
> http://www.fsf.org


Since when should linux users have to pay for codecs?
Bloody hell. Are we heading down the Windows path?


I would never in my life pay for any codecs? Why? Simply because a user
shouldn't have to.

C'mon, seriously, some common sense required I think.


--
Chris Jones <
chrisjones@comcen.com.au>


--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss


--


Firefox (
www.getfirefox.com) -- A browser you can trust
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Greg K Nicholson 12-04-2007 12:45 AM

Patent issues with automatic codec installation
 
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 21:29 -0400, Cody A.W. Somerville wrote:
> So, the next time you wish to send such a nonconstructive and
> inflaming post, why not do us a favor and send it to /dev/null
> instead.
>

Let's not begin an infinite series where each participant repeats a
paraphrase of this to the previous participant.

> Anyhow, It seems to me that he is proposing we make it easy for people
> to adhere to local law like Fedora does with Codec buddy which seems
> more than reasonable to me.
>

Yeah, users should be as informed as is sensible given the overall state
of the law in the world.

So it's very wise to inform users that what they are about to do may be
illegal in their jurisdiction. Doubly so if a user's time zone suggests
that what they're about to do is probably illegal.

But I don't think many users would welcome making it harder to do
something that they know to be legal; or even that they wish to do
despite its illegality.

We certainly shouldn't make it easy to break the law *without knowing
what you're doing*; we don't necessarily have to prevent a user from
doing something simply because it is illegal in many countries.

For example, cars converted to right-hand drive specifically for use in
the UK are rarely (probably never) limited to a top speed of 70 miles
per hour (about 115 km/h), which is the legal limit on any public road
in the UK, even when the car's top speed is already electronically
limited (usually to 155 mph). (I'm aware that it's legal to drive faster
than 70 mph on private land, but that's very much an edge case; I
suspect there would be analogous edge cases here.)



--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Chris Jones 12-04-2007 11:03 PM

Patent issues with automatic codec installation
 
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 08:20 -0400, Cody A.W. Somerville wrote:
> Right and thats what we do but GNU/Linux isn't about breaking the law.
>
> On Dec 4, 2007 5:47 AM, Chris Jones <chrisjones@comcen.com.au> wrote:
> I wasn't saying that paying Fluendo is silly etc. If people
> wish to
> follow that path, that's great.
> I was simply stating that I think that something as simple as
> audio/video codecs shouldn't have to come to this. It's
> insane!! ;-)
>
> The whole point of gnu/linux is to create a free and open
> source
> environment.
> And it seems that paying for simple codecs is going against
> what gnu
> linux stands for.
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Jones <chrisjones@comcen.com.au>
>
>
>
>
>
> --


Yes, but I think you're missing the whole point that I'm making.

If laws pressure linux users into setting up a pay-for-codec system,
then it's completely wrong.
Remember when DeCSS was first released? Sure, the laws were there
telling tux users that using a simple css script to simply watch a css
encrypted DVD was 'illegal'. But users kept doing it anyway and it has
now become accepted as a simple decryption script that is required for
watching DVDs.
Sure, Ubuntu cannot pre-install this by default as it could still be
"illegal" in some countries. But by warning the user before they install
the script/codecs that they ,ay be breaking a law in X country,
Canonical are covering themselves as it's up to the users discretion
whether to install it or not.

My point... the codec issue(s) we are talking about is no different. And
it seems that the laws are happy if we pay for a codec (depending of
course on what country we're talking about here) it's fine.
But if you source it for free, that's viewed as wrong.
C'mon mate, seriously, do you see something stupid going on here?

Regards

--
Chris Jones <chrisjones@comcen.com.au>


--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:20 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.