Re: Patent issues with automatic codec installation
- > Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:35:30 +1300 > From: "Aaron Whitehouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Patent issues with automatic codec installation (was: > Automatic installation of DVD CSS support) > To: "Christofer C. Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 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
Re: 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - > > Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:35:30 +1300 > > From: "Aaron Whitehouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Patent issues with automatic codec installation (was: > > Automatic installation of DVD CSS support) > > To: "Christofer C. Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > > Message-ID: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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&#
Re: 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
Re: 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > -- 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 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
Patent issues with automatic codec installation (was: Automatic installation of DVD CSS support)
> > 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 -- 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
Re: Patent issues with automatic codec installation (was: Automatic installation of DVD CSS support)
> 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. They aren't *likely* to break the law; lots of people live in countries without software patent legislation. -- 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
Re: Patent issues with automatic codec installation (was: Automatic installation of DVD CSS support)
On 01/12/2007, Greg K Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > They aren't *likely* to break the law; lots of people live in countries > without software patent legislation. I almost replied to Aaron earlier on but I decided to wait to see if anyone else did. I think there are several things in the original mail that are not correct or are true, false or undecided depending on the location of the user and maybe other factors. Basically I think a discussion by software people on what is and isn't legal in various jurisdictions is a lot of fun if you like that sort of thing but ultimately unproductive. If there's any debate over whether a particular practice is legal (in which jurisdiction?) then you should ask a lawyer. If the debate absolutely must take place then every point should be backed up with references to written laws or court decisions, so that people can see that something isn't merely your idea of how a legal system would work if it made sense (they frequently don't). Otherwise you're doing the modern day equivalent of debating how angels can dance on the head of a pin, F > -- > 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 > -- 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
Re: Patent issues with automatic codec installation (was: Automatic installation of DVD CSS support)
> If the debate absolutely must take place then I originally drafted a reply addressing each of the points people have raised. I don't agree with a lot of what has been said, but I think I can state my ultimate point a lot more succinctly. The implicit suggestion in the above comments is that we shouldn't have this discussion. If we naively continue distributing software that we know is unlikely to be legal for some users, Ubuntu may be exposed to legal threats. If Ubuntu doesn't have a reliable risk assessment from lawyers in each country, perhaps the default position should be one that we know is legal. Presumably there is a reason that Fedora encourages people to pay money and use Codec Buddy. Unless all of the Ubuntu team is confident that their current stance is legal, perhaps they should take a safer one until they have that level of comfort. Aaron -- FSF Associate Member: 5632 http://www.fsf.org -- 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
