| |||||||||||
This is the wrong approach...This is the wrong approach...Posted Nov 5, 2007 0:18 UTC (Mon) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141)In reply to: This is the wrong approach... by pizza Parent article: Codec Buddy in Fedora 8
No, this is very much an issue of free vs. non-free software. The question of legality is pure FUD. Software patents apply to much more than just multimedia codecs. For some reason distros are not afraid to ship the Linux kernel even though it is known to infringe on a multitude of software patents. Right now Red Hat is the target of a software patent lawsuit not related to multimedia. So what are we going to see next? Installers for proprietary window managers? Web browsers? Printer drivers? Editors? All available for a few $$$ and guaranteed to have patent extortion money already covered? I am sick of seeing free software ideals being tossed out the window when it comes to multimedia. Suddenly nobody complains about being told to run only approved software on their machines, even though everybody would cry bloody murder if they were told to run only, say, approved operating systems. Obviously Fluendo has an agenda and directly profits from this nonsense. It is a shame to see Fedora become a part of this.
(Log in to post comments)
This is the wrong approach... Posted Nov 5, 2007 8:19 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] The question of legality is pure FUD.I'm quite sure Fedora consulted lawyers about that. Suddenly nobody complains about being told to run only approved software on their machinesAs for "nobody complains", you probably need to read other comments. As for "being told", I'll rather take that than "being forced".
This is the wrong approach... Posted Nov 5, 2007 12:42 UTC (Mon) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] >> The question of legality is pure FUD. >I'm quite sure Fedora consulted lawyers about that. And even if they hadn't, it doesn't exactly take much work to find that the holders of MP3 patents have been actively suing people who incorporate support without the proper licenses. MPEG[|2|4] has seen similar lawsuits. dvdcss has seen someone get successfully sued for merely *linking* to the code, to say nothing of actual distribution. (And that wasn't even about patents!) FUD? Hardly.
This is the wrong approach... Posted Nov 5, 2007 13:11 UTC (Mon) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link] Please point me to the relevant lawsuits, thank you. You can consult lawyers about many things and if you consult different lawyers they will tell you different things. Plus, if there is a remote chance of a problem, it will get pointed out to you. That's a bit like asking a physicist if it's possible that a meteroid hits you on the head. It *is* possible. Now do you keep peering at the sky while you walk around outside? No, you do not. You are confusing DeCSS, libcss and libdvdcss. These things achieve similar things through different means, but only DeCSS has been the target of lawsuits. And the defendants came out squeaky clean... Also, you guys keep dodging an important point: Software patents cover much more than just multimedia, so why is multimedia treated specially? Red Hat itself is the target of a lawsuit related to window manager technology. Why is Fedora not afraid to redistribute window managers? Where is the WMBuddy?
This is the wrong approach... Posted Nov 5, 2007 14:31 UTC (Mon) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] You're right in that 'DeCSS' was the subject of the lawsuit, but the difference between it and libdvdcss is irrelevant given that it was about decryption -- or rather, circumventing access controls -- which both do. http://www.2600.com/news/112801-files/universal.html Far from being "squeaky clean", the defendants *lost* -- 'plantiffs are entitled to appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief' That was through the DMCA, rather than patents, but at its core it's still about the control of an idea rather than a specific implementation of an idea. What makes multimedia special is that there are powerful interests behind the scenes with a vested interest in keeping the status quo, and thus there's a great deal of money on the table. Where there's money, there's [the threat of] litigation. All of the recent mp3 lawsuit links I've come up with are from third parties claiming additional patent rights over and above what Thompson wants. Wikipedia has a decent summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues In any case, Thompson wants $0.75 per decoder or $1.25 for a full codec. Multiply that by three for willful infringement, and then again by the number of Fedora installations (in the US, at least), and that's a lot of direct exposure for RedHat should they include an unlicensed mp3 decoder in Fedora, or possibly even just link to one. To say nothing of the recent third-party trolling going on.. With the CodecBuddy thing, Redhat can both cover their asses legally, and provide an user-friendly option for the users that demand a legal (ie properly-licensed) mp3 codec. Software Patents suck. F/OSS software normally just ignores them altogether (which is generally the sanest strategy, both legally and practically) In the case of multimedia, there's no way one can claim ignorance when the specs themselves mention the patents and their licensing requirements. The nice thing about CodecBuddy is that if Redhat's lawyers determine that they can legally link to a third-party repository to provide a F/OSS codec, it's a trivial change to make.
This is the wrong approach... Posted Nov 7, 2007 22:50 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link] You are right, I forgot about the 2600 case. I was just thinking of DVD Jon, who was sued at home in Norway but cleared of all charges and the appeal was thrown out. Then there were the Bunner and Pavlovich cases in which the defendants prevailed: http://w2.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/ Note that these cases ended much later than 2600. We have not seen another day in court for CSS circumvention since then. I believe the interested parties fear they might lose again and prefer to leverage FUD to attain their goals. There is an important difference between libdvdcss and DeCSS. DeCSS is based on a player key that was leaked out to the internet, while libdvdcss simply brute-forces the (weak) encryption and subsequently caches the key. libdvdcss was never the target of a lawsuit to the best of my knowledge and I believe that it would fare better than DeCSS.
This is the wrong approach... Posted Nov 5, 2007 14:32 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Multimedia is not treated specially. RSA patent on its public key encryption algorithm was treated seriously. So was the GIF patent. But the JPEG patent was ignored. Some patents have strong backing, while others are just bogus and wound not stand in court.The problem specific to multimedia is that there is big money involved, so the opponents would have good lawyers. And it's not helping that the patent holders are often the companies that actually developed the codecs.
This is the wrong approach... Posted Nov 6, 2007 13:25 UTC (Tue) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] The program though, asserts as FACT that the mentioned codecs require patent-licensing. I don't think it's in RedHats or OSS interest to help spread that claim. Some of the codecs -MAY- require patent-licensing in -certain- jurisdicitons, but that is a quite different statement. If you're in a no-sw-patent jurisdiciton, Codec-buddy is still going to helpfully inform you that you need a license. Which is plain and simple not true.
This is the wrong approach... Posted Nov 6, 2007 15:09 UTC (Tue) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link] >If you're in a no-sw-patent jurisdiciton, Codec-buddy is still going to >helpfully inform you that you need a license. Which is plain and simple not >true. If you are willing to submit patches to codec-buddy/codeina which figure out where you are and do or do not output the warnings based on that information I think they would probably be accepted. The problem is figuring out all the places where these patents matter. It's not _just_ the US anymore. -sv
This is the wrong approach... Posted Nov 6, 2007 15:51 UTC (Tue) by jfj (guest, #37917) [Link] Right! Also, there is the misinformation in this article that the *user* is illegal and may go to jail or something. Illegal (according to US courts) is the one who is selling mp3 encoders in the US (and parts of the world) without having paid patent fees. Patent problems are cofused with copyright infrigment. I do not believe that linking to ffmpeg is a patent violation like linking to pirated content is copyright infigment. And probably fedora's lawyers could argue that they are not even selling mp3 encoders, simply distributing free software and selling support. Someone can get the impression that Fedora is either pushed in the corner with the recent Novell deals, or in it for some kind of profit.
This is the wrong approach... Posted Nov 6, 2007 16:00 UTC (Tue) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link] It has nothing to do with selling anything. It only has to do with distribution. Also the user is not in danger of any kind but if fedora distributed anything covered under those patents then red hat could get sued into oblivion and then the user would lose his/her vendor of the fedora linux distribution. -sv
This is the wrong approach... Posted Nov 7, 2007 22:27 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link] This however, is not what the warning text printed by CodecBuddy implies. It sounds as if the *user* needed a patent license. This is simply not true. The problems are strictly Fedora's, no end user is being harmed nor saved from any kind of harm by being deprived of codec support.
This is the wrong approach... Posted Nov 10, 2007 12:31 UTC (Sat) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] Are you sure about that? From Joe Shaw's blog:
This is the wrong approach... Posted Nov 8, 2007 9:39 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] That can't be done. There's no foolproof way of knowing where the user is located, though I guess the country that the user *claimed* to be from earlier in the installation-process would be a reasonable first guess. My suggestion would be simply to change the text -- for ALL users -- so that it says the equivalent of; "licensing of codecs may be required in some jurisdictions", rather than todays blanket-statement that it IS required full stop, no qualifications, which is just plain wrong.
This is the wrong approach... Posted Nov 8, 2007 9:53 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link] Seconded. It's also not hard to list the affected jurisdictions. To the best of my knowledge that list would be rather short: USA.
|
|||||||||||