On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Bernie Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Urko Fernandez wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 13:13 +0200, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > >> The "download codecs yourself" (aka "[EMAIL PROTECTED]") is an > > > > I don't think you can call it piracy when all you are doing is using the > > free implementation of a codec. This is completely legal in some > > countries, you are not stealing anything, as a matter of fact, even when > > you download unlicensed codecs, you are still not stealing it, let alone > > pirating it, it's just copyright infringement. > > IANAL, but I'd like to point out what the FSFE explained at > the FOSDEM 2007 keynote, the way I understood it. My friend > Andriani, an IP lawyer, is on Cc to correct me in case I said > something incorrect. > > Unlike common belief, creating, distributing and using patented > software is not _illegal_ per se, not even in countries accepting > software patents. > > There's no law specifically disallowing the use of patented > ideas. There's however law that grants the patent holder the > right to ask you for a compensation if you use their idea.
The patent holder doesn't just have the right to "ask" you for compensation, they also have the right to get the government to _force_ the compensation out of you (in countries where patents are enforced). > This is very different from copyright law, which is being enforced > proactively and is punished with fines and in some cases even jail. If you don't pay the patent holder the amount the courts decide is fair to compensate them for infringement, then fines (and possibly jail) would be the next recourses from what I understand. The primary difference between patent and copyright infringement is that the value of the infringement for a single private user is much higher in copyright infringement so it can be profitable to go after a single private user that is infringing copyright. A patent holder probably couldn't get very much in the way of damages out of a single private user for infringing on their patent. Companies distributing patent-infringing products are a much better target. > In other words, a patent breach is not trouble between you and your > country. It's between you and the patent holders. If they do not > notice, or do notice but do not care to go after you, then you're > totally fine. Legally and morally. That depends what you believe to be legal and moral. It is true that patent law is civil law, not criminal law (in most countries), but that doesn't mean we should respect it any less in my opinion. Just because they don't go after you when they find out about it, doesn't mean they can't go after you several months down the road after you have incurred more damages and they can sue you for more. > And even if they _do_ ask you, patent law only allows patent holders > a compensation proportional to the market opportunity involved in > the specific breach. So, if I download an mp3 codec, I can be > asked to refund the market value of an mp3 codec. > > Sweet, eh? :-) As the individual user, yes, it is "sweet". Patent holders can't sue you for very much. However, the person distributing it could be sued for quite a bit if they distribute to many people. Making the user download the codec on their own just shifts the infringement responsibility away from OLPC onto whoever is hosting the codec. If the codec is hosted on a server in some country where patent law is not enforced, you might be ok. But you can't rely on the host to be available so your software may become useless if it relies on that codec to work. The only solution in my opinion is to use entirely patent-free codecs or codecs where royalty-free patent rights have been granted for all patents used. That way you can distribute them with the laptops and not need to worry about some server hosting patented codec implementations going down. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Denver _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel