[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
I'm with you on the patent issues and I take your point regarding it not having been tested in the courts :D Jon p.s. sorry for the top-post. On 02/05/07, Neil Williams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2 May 2007 12:28:33 +0100 > "Jonathan Roberts" <jonathan.roberts.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > talking about how Ubuntu is illegal in the US due to DMCA, > > > > > > Untrue. Ubuntu makes it possible for a user to install stuff that could > > > be deemed illegal to copy or distribute in the US but a lot of those > > > problems are untested in court and Ubuntu does warn the user. > > > > > > > I'm afraid I think you're wrong here - although I'm not certain! - the > > DMCA as I understand it even prohibits providing information on ways > > to circumvent copy protection, which is exactly what Ubuntu does. > > No cases have come to court and the interpretation of laws enacted by > politicians is always subject to clarification by the law courts of the > legislature within the area of jurisdiction. That is how the law works, > even in the USA. That is why UK banks have been paying out on these > overdraft charge claims, they don't want to let the courts set a > precedent that would allow everybody to claim. Whilst an issue is > untested, everyone is uncertain about exactly where the boundaries lie, > so (in the "logic" of the big banks), people are less likely to make a > claim because of the risk of losing - yet they always pay out because > they figure that paying out is less expensive than letting it get to > court. Bizarre. At the moment, the DMCA is untested in court (as is the GPL) > and exactly what it means for MP3 and Ubuntu is simply not clear. > > If Ubuntu are liable under the DMCA then so could all ISP's, all search > engines and all web archive systems. Even attempting to enforce such a > all-embracing law is crazy. It is trying to enforce USA politics on > sovereign states who are outside USA law. It wasn't so long ago that > Debian stopped using the non-us repositories - it would be stupid to > require those to be restarted. > > The DMCA proponents can claim what they want - see the earlier thread > about DMCA and Digg that revolves around asserting that a pure number > can be protected under "Intellectual Property" and therefore by the > DMCA. As a number cannot be the property of any one legal entity then > there can never be any case against Digg under the DMCA, it's as simple > as that. > > MP3 codecs ARE patented but those patents are only enforceable in the > USA - which is why software patents have been so vocally opposed in > Europe and why the fight must continue to prevent them being introduced > by other means. DVD region encoding is another issue in this area - the > law is far from certain. If the "logic" of DMCA proponents is accepted > then it would prevent Google from indexing pages that contain the > libdvdcss code or the number at the centre of the Digg debacle. It is > simply preposterous. The DMCA seeks to legally enforce security through > obscurity. If it wasn't so $&%*&£!$$% serious it would be hysterically > funny. > > The lesson is obvious - always encode in Ogg Vorbis. Converting mp3 to > ogg is lossy and sub-optimal so this has the added bonus that in order > to actually have listenable music in Ogg format, you need to have the > original recording available for ripping. That generally means some > form of purchased media rather than some warez site. > > Patents stink - even whilst they are unenforceable for us in Europe, we > must do everything we can to further the use of non-patented codecs and > non-patented systems to ensure that some form of free content remains > available even if the patent idiots in the USA are allowed to peddle > their dangerous lies about copying software being equivalent to piracy. > Piracy requires theft and theft is defined in terms of property - > software is not a physical thing, it does not exist in physical terms, > it is merely stored on physical media sometimes. Software is not > property and cannot be judged under crimes defined in terms of > property. When you download a file from my website, you have not stolen > that file - I still have the original - so how can that ever be deemed > theft? > > THAT is why patented and proprietary code is SUCH a BAD thing for > everyone with any hope of using free software in the future. > > > > That's separate from the much-discussed issue here of whether Ubuntu > > > should make this stuff so easy to obtain in the first place. It is a > > > deliberate decision within Ubuntu to make it easy - some will say that > > > Ubuntu may yet regret that policy. > > > > Which is illegal in the US due to the DMCA...I think. > > Not necessarily. > > -- > > > Neil Williams > ============= > http://www.data-freedom.org/ > http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ > http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ > > > -- > The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG > http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list > FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html > > > -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html