Isn't this a legal problem for Ubuntu?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn May 27, 2009 9:08 AM EDT |
I get Steven's point but... isn't it a legal problem for Ubuntu? mp3 format is proprietary. Might not Ubuntu be infringing on a patent if they are seen to be encouraging downloading restricted codecs? |
| jdixon May 27, 2009 9:10 AM EDT |
> Might not Ubuntu be infringing on a patent if they are seen to be encouraging downloading restricted codecs? More likely they would be contributing to or assisting in the infringement, but yes, I suspect that is the primary concern. That's also why they can't provide clear, obvious, and readily available instructions on how to do so. My Dell Mini 9 includes the Fluendo codecs, which resolves the problem, but you pay money for that. Ubuntu can't afford to include it in a free download. |
| caitlyn May 27, 2009 9:15 AM EDT |
That's what I thought. Assuming we are both correct then Steven's rant is way off base. You can't ask a distro to create legal problems for itself and I can understand why Canonical doesn't want to pup up an ad for the Fluendo codecs. |
| tuxchick May 27, 2009 9:57 AM EDT |
As much as I enjoy a good rant, a Google search for 'ubuntu mp3' returns this link at the top:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats/ Followed by a lot more good links that tell you what to do. Yes, a nice notification and install popup would be a good thing to have. But even without those it doesn't seem like a very big deal to figure it out. |
| jacog May 27, 2009 10:03 AM EDT |
Mandriva is great in this regard... your "This media file won't work" popup gives you a choice between installing the codec that might possibly be illegal in your country, or the Fluendo codecs. It really is a polished distro compared to most others. (read your review of the latest, c... pity about the bugs - maybe better on a desktop than a netbook? - will try) |
| caitlyn May 27, 2009 10:31 AM EDT |
@jacog: No matter what hardware you run you will find lots of annoying little bugs in this particular Mandriva release. I didn't list nearly all of them in the review. The one I detailed in the comments section re: keyboard layouts and mappings is particularly annoying to me. However, unless you have one of the problematic chipsets (Intel, SiS, some ATI or nVidia) there are no showstoppers. Sadly there are lots and lots of people who have those video chips in desktops, notebooks, and netbooks. If you have an Intel chipset you are pretty well cooked and should avoid this release at all costs. Similarly, if you have a netbook built on the Via Nano standard which uses a Via chipset for video rather than Intel you likely will have no video problems at all. It's not the form factor. |
| r_a_trip May 27, 2009 10:37 AM EDT |
One big useless rant indeed. It's not kowtowing to the FOSS purists that keeps Canonical from including closed codec support out-of-the-box. It's all the nasty codec companies that want to see $$$ every time a copy is distributed. How is Canonical supposed to pay the tremendous licensing fees for all the gratis Ubuntu downloads? The company isn't breaking even at the moment. In case Mr. Rosenberg forgot; we don't pay Canonical a dime when we hit download. Is he going to pick up the tab? Pointing to Mint is disingenious. Mint is a fine distribution, but the inclusion of royalty bearing, patented software by default without having a license agreement simply makes Mint an illegal product in certain jurisdictions. What more can Canonical do than silently support medibuntu.org and have it be a publicly known secret? |
| caitlyn May 27, 2009 11:12 AM EDT |
One update to my previous comment: Mandriva now has updated drivers for SiS chipsets: See: http://www.mandriva.com/security/advisories?name=MDVA-2009:0... |
| azerthoth May 27, 2009 11:20 AM EDT |
and there is the rub, in certain jurisdictions. The trick, base your distro outside of those jurisdictions. This places legal conformance right back where is should be, on the person using it. Determining where a distro is based, that could prove to be a little trickier than it would seem at first glance. Hopefully someone along the way set up a legal framework as a non profit and has actually kept up on the paper work for it (Gentoo), short of that, maybe it's where the lead developer is. Which would work too, unless your lead developer is determined after some time period by popular vote (Debian). Legally what qualifies as seperation of distro's like Ubuntu and Mint. Seriously Mint is little more than a repackaged rebranded Ubuntu, so is just spinning up an installer enough to qualify, in the eyes of the law(s), as a seperate entity of origination? |
| chalbersma May 27, 2009 11:24 AM EDT |
On 9.04 mp3 support just worked for me. Maybe he just needs to upgrade. |
| DarrenR114 May 27, 2009 12:46 PM EDT |
When I installed 8.04 and 8.10, all I had to do is try to play an MP3 with Totem, and a popup appeared offering to get the correct codecs. A couple of button clicks later, MP3s were playing just fine for me. |
| Bob_Robertson May 27, 2009 12:51 PM EDT |
> and there is the rub, in certain jurisdictions. The trick, base your distro outside of those jurisdictions. Thus debian-multimedia.com |
| Steven_Rosenber May 27, 2009 1:59 PM EDT |
In defense of my rant, it appears that if you know enough to open up your repositories, when you click on the MP3, Ubuntu offers to install the offending codecs. So it's OK for a user to do something somewhat unrelated -- change their software repository choices -- and then see a dialog about how to play an MP3, and it's OK for Ubuntu to have a repository with the required packages, but it's not OK to give the new, out-of-the-box users the same consideration that a more geeky user who has already either opened up the repositories or been on Google and feels confident enough to do this on his or her own? Again, I'm no expert, but I fail to see the difference between offering a helpful dialog box WITHOUT a restricted/non-free repository previously added to the system. If in your first week using Linux you even know what a restricted/non-free repository is, or even know the difference between free, open-source software and the other kind, then you are a very enlightened user. And that's not everybody. As you can see, Ubuntu promotes its system's ability to handle MP3s: http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/904features/musi... with the cryptic instruction: Canonical is making codecs available to enable users to watch DVDs and access proprietary formats legally and easily (at shop.ubuntu.com). That leads you here: http://shop.canonical.com/index.php?cPath=19¤cy=USD To spend $25 on Fluendo. That's the solution? Pay $25 for Fluendo ... or geek up enough in your first week to open up the repositories? Even if Ubuntu threw up a Fluendo dialog box I'd be happy. I'd be happier with that AND the instructions on how to proceed. Even a Web link in the box would be OK. But "nothing" -- not OK. All I'm saying is if Ubuntu can throw up a helpful dialog when a user knows a little, how about help for those who know almost nothing. Even a dialog that says, "sorry, MP3 sucks, you suck, screw you and your non-free files, goodbye," or maybe an explanation of how to open up their repositories and then click on the media file for further instructions. Even a dialog box that says which audio files DO play, i.e. ogg and perhaps WAV, would be extremely helpful. But NOTHING is not helpful, not in keeping with a distro that allegedly aspires to more than fanboy-worship status. My rant = NO instruction, just a media file that won't play, NO error message, NO help message, no NOTHING, is wrong, wrong, wrong for Ubuntu. DarrenR114 has it right. He clicked, got the popup and then made his decision. That's all I want for Ubuntu -- for this to happen when an MP3 is clicked NO MATTER THE STATUS of the user's repositories. It's a small change, and unless my system installed in a borked fashion and the change has already been made (or made in 8.10 or 9.04), it should happen. Any argument as to why it's OK to do it after repositories are opened up but not before needs some additional explanation for me to understand it. The way it looks to me, either they offer the help or don't. They have the packages or not. I'm not OK with them not offering the help, but offering it to the slightly geeky but not to the new user seems more than a little counterintuitive. And if MP3 support indeed "just works" in 9.04, I'm glad to hear it. I do understand why as a community many FOSS advocates don't want to have anything to do with MP3 and other restricted formats. And I agree that this is a goal to aim for. I'm extremely excited by the prospect of Firefox supporting a non-Flash embedded video format and bringing that freedom not just to Linux but to Windows and Mac environments as well. |
| jdixon May 27, 2009 2:18 PM EDT |
> That's the solution? Pay $25 for Fluendo ... Yes, that's the solution. At least in the US. :( > Even if Ubuntu threw up a Fluendo dialog box I'd be happy. Agreed. They should do that. > ...or maybe an explanation of how to open up their repositories and then click on the media file for further instructions. They're not going to do that, for the reasons noted above. > Any argument as to why it's OK to do it after repositories are opened up but not before needs some additional explanation for me to understand it. If the user has already enabled the required repositories, they've legally taken the responsibility for the installation of the codecs. That makes them liable, not Canonical. |
| tuxchick May 27, 2009 3:07 PM EDT |
Geez Steven, when the answer is a fast Web search away, I really don't see the point of working so hard at being mad about it. Yes, it could be handled better, but it wasn't that hard to solve. |
| caitlyn May 27, 2009 3:17 PM EDT |
tuxchick: While I don't agree with the rant... In Steven's defense it is really hard to overestimate the stupidity or lack of willingness to learn when it comes to some Windows users who "try" Linux for 15 minutes or even a few days... See: http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2007/02/performing_brai... I'm sure you remember that one. jdixon/Steven: I believe jdixon has summed up the situation correctly. Yes, it probably could be handled with a popup which gave a web link which explained the legal situations. Would that really be easier for the newbie? |
| Steven_Rosenber May 27, 2009 4:19 PM EDT |
@tuxchick: I guess I'm OK Googling and figuring it out myself in just about any other distro. But I feel that for Ubuntu specifically, there is a disconnect between a media file not playing, getting absolutely no information about why and then having to do a Web search to figure out why. Having a system on which a media file won't play is OK, but having that system be the super-hot, we-love-new-users Ubuntu means that if they either can't or won't provide the proper packages, they need to explain right out front why this is, why you might want to try free, open formats and how to access the forbidden files if they both understand the consequences and agree to them. |
| tuxchick May 27, 2009 4:28 PM EDT |
You're right, Caitlyn, a lot of computer users aren't willing to invest even a few minutes into learning the right way to do things. But Steven is not a stereotypical dumb luser, and one experience is a weak basis for a big rant. In recent weeks I have upgraded and installed Kubuntu and Ubuntu on a number of systems, and installed all the multimedia bells and whistles because I do a lot of audio and video editing and creation, and I don't recall having any special codec drama. I think it would have been a good idea to research this a little more before blasting Ubuntu, because it's quite possible it was something peculiar to Steven's machine, rather than a Giant Ubuntu Defect. I know I keep saying this, but I found the solution almost instantly, so I rather feel like this is all overblown. Even worse, Matt Asay has jumped on the "hey, let's not do any research and flame Ubuntu!" bandwagon, citing Steven's article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10249987-16.html 'Linux 'desktop' still too geeky for mainstream users?' Is a little homework before ranting too much to ask? |
| jdixon May 27, 2009 4:48 PM EDT |
> ..and how to access the forbidden files if they both understand the consequences and agree to them. That's the sticking point. If they do that, they open themselves to legal liability. Regardless of how carefully they say "This is your responsibility, don't do this if it's illegal in your area", if they tell someone how to perform a potentially illegal act, they may be considered liable in court. An individual user doesn't have enough money to make it worthwhile to pursue them. Canonical does. That's why a link to the Fluendo codecs would be a good thing. They're legal, so it doesn't expose Canonical to any liability. It's not an ideal solution, but it's better than nothing. Steven, why don't you recreate your experience so you can describe the exact steps and the results (my apologies if you've done so in the article, as I haven't read it), write it up as a bug report, and suggesting providing a link to the Fluendo codecs as a solution? It may not fly, as the Canonical folks may have already considered and rejected that idea, but it's worth trying. |
| Steven_Rosenber May 27, 2009 5:10 PM EDT |
more @tuxchick:Quoting:As much as I enjoy a good rant, a Google search for 'ubuntu mp3' returns this link at the top: [HYPERLINK@help.ubuntu.com] I do have a link to that in my rant, and that's how I figured it out. When you go to the "official" Ubuntu documentation, there's no mention of the problem with MP3s and vanilla Ubuntu: https://help.ubuntu.com/8.04/musicvideophotos/C/music.html They're missing a teachable opportunity. That's a great place to introduce ogg and talk about the various formats and what they mean in terms of software freedom and actual use on your hardware. Glossing over it, as they do, servers nobody. |
| tracyanne May 27, 2009 5:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:In Steven's defense it is really hard to overestimate the stupidity or lack of willingness to learn when it comes to some Windows users who "try" Linux for 15 minutes or even a few days... I have to ask, just who are these mythical Windows users who try Linux. and don't like it. I'm actually, interestingly, getting more positive feed back since I switched to Ubuntu. Maybe it's the expectations, they don't expect it to be like Windows. @JD, as I recall, and as Caitlyn pointed out, Mandriva have a popup that explains in simple terms your choices, you can select any one of them, and the files needed will download and install, immediately if you choose the Free ones, or after a money transaction if you choose Fluendo. |
| hkwint May 27, 2009 5:34 PM EDT |
Quoting:> and there is the rub, in certain jurisdictions. The trick, base your distro outside of those jurisdictions. Ain't gonna work. Let me show you why: Quoting:Thus debian-multimedia.com Doesn't exist, but assuming you mean debian-multimedia.org. That's based in France. I don't know if you follow any 'abroad' news (except for those who live in France; because for them it's not abroad, ey?), but there are not many countries where copyright associations are that closely tied to the politics. I dare say not even in the country where most LXer-readers live. For some time my country - NL - hosted some torrent sites, and even without jurisdiction like in Sweden, almost all of them have been shut down. What does this prove? Anything in the EU is not good. Like we know, the US won't work either. Russia? Ain't gonna work, look at allofmp3. China? They're starting to keep an eye on Baidu et all since China has been in the WTO as well. Remember Steve Ballmer used the WTO to threat Asia about Microsoft patents. Something along the line 'someday someone will come look for "their" money'. What do we need? Some country outside WTO where WIPO-politicians don't have any influence. Why doesn't this work? Well, last time I looked, bandwidth in North Korea, Tajikistan and Somalia wasn't trustworthy nor cheap. OK, pirates rule Somalia, but that's not on the digital territory. Liberia, Libya, and Iran are other possibilities of countries with only small ties to the WTO; but I doubt if they provide a good alternative. All the others have observers from WTO or are otherwise involved, meaning they could be facing trade reprisals if they don't respect 'IP'. I think the other solutions are better: -Where possible, proprietary codecs shouldn't be used; if not possible: -Proprietary codecs should be included with pre-installed OS, -Proprietary codecs should be in the hardware, -otherwise solve it the Microsoft Windows way. For the latter: What Darren / Steven said above. Make something along the lines of a free variant of filext.com (ubuntu.com/mime or so) where you are redirected if Ubuntu can't play your files, offer explanation why it's not able to play the files, and offer links to the website providing the plugin. Just like Windows did for Java and still does for Quicktime, Flash and other proprietary stuff (dare I say cr@p?). For MP3, it's more difficult. I think of a multiple choice menu here, with three options: -First, show an infobox which gives them a short two line explanation about why they cannot play MP3's by default and whose fault this is. -Then, ask people if they believe software patents are enforceable in their country. If they answer 'no', let them continue to install whatever non-free codecs they like - after they agreed _they_ are responsible. -If they answer 'yes', provide them with contact details from their local politicians where they can protest against software patents; as a means to make sure they know _they_ can influence enforceability. -If they don't want to write a letter to their politicians, people should be told to bugger Thompson & co who _might_ hold IP and they need to contact them for a license. Thompson is the one wanting to enforce IP, let them have it. I say offer phone numbers of executives of Thomson and let Ubuntu-users ask them if they can provide a licensed player. After all, almost all companies assumed to hold IP for certain file formats, offer apps to play / open the content, and Thomson is an exception here. Probably the approach above is way to 'activist' for most people, but hey, why not change the world while spreading Ubuntu. |
| caitlyn May 27, 2009 5:54 PM EDT |
Steven: I think Tuxchick hit upon why some of us weren't exactly thrilled by your rant. Matt Asay jumps on the bandwagon. How many others will? How many tech journalists and bloggers will cite you to "prove" that Linux isn't ready for the masses and never will be? How much have you, perhaps inadvertently, contributed to the Microsoft FUD machine? Some of us who've been reading your stuff for a while know that you're an intelligent, responsible journalist who usually does his homework. We've come to expect better from you. |
| Bob_Robertson May 27, 2009 6:12 PM EDT |
Tracyanne, > I have to ask, just who are these mythical Windows users who try Linux. and don't like it. Here's one: http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=29270.0 |
| caitlyn May 27, 2009 6:18 PM EDT |
tracyanne: Follow the link I posted above. The quotes in my article are real and they came from e-mail I received in response to my writing for O'Reilly. In every Windows vs. Linux thread you'll find some Windows fans who claim to have tried Linux and hated it. Some even specify distro and version. I figure at least half the claims are real. IME most Windows users who try Linux are frustrated at first. If they stick with it for a little while they end up wondering how they ever made do with Windows. The key is the "stick to it" part. How long is "a little while"? For some folks it's just days and for others it can be six months. It all depends how computer literate someone is, how bright that person is, and how much patience they have. In a society where far too many want "instant gratification" my half-joking "tried it for 15 minutes" may actually be all the chance some people give Linux. |
| hkwint May 27, 2009 6:31 PM EDT |
Quoting:How much have you, perhaps inadvertently, contributed to the Microsoft FUD machine? I agree Steven's story should have been posted in Ubuntu's bugzilla instead; something along the lines: "When playing an unfree format for the first time, please make sure Ubuntu redirects me to https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats/ " (the link TC provided) - to prevent FUD. I'm willing to do such a thing, but I don't use Ubuntu; so I guess I'm not the right one to do so. On the other hand, if it's discouraged to make negative comments on Linux distro's because it might serve the FUD-band wagon, people may feel restrain to post bugs etc. Steve's blog is an easy target, but Matt Asay could use Ubuntu's bugzilla as well to 'prove' Ubuntu is 'not ready'. Then people could not post bugs because it might serve as FUD-ammo; and we end up with closed bugzilla's like the Microsoft / Android one. It's a first step to censoring negative Linux comments. I guess we don't want to do that, do we? Because by doing that you add to the very same FUD-wagon; these headlines may be following: "FOSS Elitist want to censor negative Linux-comments". I suppose we should also respect that writers want people to read their blog, and almost nobody reads Bugzilla. |
| klhrevolution May 27, 2009 7:18 PM EDT |
If they throw up any dialog box it should be: pony up $$$ or click to convert file to... ogg or some other format. Or a dialog like: Converting.. will play momentarily or pay $$$ to play mp3.. Forget jurisdiction simply let the user click the darn file and convert it to ogg.. If he/she wines because it takes a second longer to play I'm sure that by then they will easily come to find out why (forums, docs, wiki, chat, etc..). And probably be grateful that they don't have to pony up $$$. |
| hkwint May 27, 2009 7:34 PM EDT |
klhrevolution: While I like your idea, converting to ogg doesn't preserve all information and I'm not sure whether it's legal, because you still need to read the mp3's before converting them. |
| Sander_Marechal May 27, 2009 8:00 PM EDT |
klhrevolution: You cannot convert to ogg without decoding the mp3. |
| Steven_Rosenber May 27, 2009 8:03 PM EDT |
Here's what I'd like to know: Just who is paying these MP3 royalties? To whom? How much? How often? |
| jdixon May 27, 2009 8:42 PM EDT |
> To whom? Mostly Fraunhofer Institute and Thomson Multimedia, though I believe Alcatel may also be involved. > How much? How often? See http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/ for all the gory details. |
| hkwint May 27, 2009 8:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:Just who is paying these MP3 royalties? Anyone who believes the several patents owned by different holders are enforceable. At least Microsoft pays for any WMP - meaning for every Windows they sell. Probably this also goes for all portable devices able to play MP3; HD-recorders with that ability and so on. WP tells however, that the holders of those patents doesn't seek to enforce them against distributors of 'free software' decoders. That's why lots of Linux distributions ship with decoders and get away with it. I have no idea why Ubuntu doesn't. Ask them, I suggest. It seems the patent holders are not targeting end users however; nor are they targeting free software. Most patents expire in 2011 also by the way. PS: This is all stuff you can easily find out by reading Wikipedia. Quoting:To whom?Thomson & Fraunhofer at least; probably Sisvel and Texas MP3 technology as well. Alcatel-Lucent also claimed patents; Microsoft nearly had to pay 1,5 billion but the judge prevented that. IIRC it was on LXer. Quoting:How much? How often? I'm lazy. Seek out for yourself: http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/ Looks like $0,75 per MP3-playing-enabled Ubuntu to me. However, for Gentoo & co it's free I guess, because Gentoo & co do not make profits while distributing their software and the patent holders don't target free decoders most of the time. Canonical however may make a profit - while shipping the very same software. It depends on what the patent holders decide here; if they have empathy with Ubuntu or not (and if they ever want free software to use their technologies again; No sane free software developer will ever develop FAT software again I guess). |
| azerthoth May 27, 2009 9:44 PM EDT |
@gus3 small problem with your argument. You have confused 2 issues, software patents and digital piracy. All the enforcements you brought up ... digital piracy. There are plenty of countries that do not recognize software patents. The media they are enforcing against is most definitively not the codec with which they were played. |
| gus3 May 27, 2009 10:08 PM EDT |
Huh? Did you post to the wrong thread, az? This comment is the first time I've said anything here. FWIW, the introductory tutorial that I'm (suppose to be) working on will use only Ogg Theora for its video. Sound will be stripped out, to reduce translation concerns. |
| tracyanne May 27, 2009 10:40 PM EDT |
Just in replay to the question on Bob's linkQuoting:In the meantime, Microsoft isn't standing still. Have you tried Windows 7, Office 2010, Visual Studio 2010, Silverlight 3, etc... In fact i have, i use WinXP everyday with Visual Studio 2008 and have tested both Windows 7 and Visual Studio 2010, I've also worked on Silverlight 2 Code. First Windows 7: As a version of Windows it scores 10 (XP score 9, in my opinion), it's clearly better than Vista, in that it's actually like an improvement of Windows XP. But, it's obviously just Windows, in the long run it's merely XP with a new paint job, and a new set of wheels. As an operating System, I'd score it at 6 or 7, as it still requires 3rd party security that is arguably not all that effective anyway, it doesn't have the useful functionality that i find improves my experience of using linux, it's clearly not significantly more stable than XP, it still requires multiple reboots, it is still a swapfile hog, even when you aren't doing anything much, NTFS is still just as prone to fragmentation, and it has the annoying pop up thing that informs you that you are doing what you set out to do and asks if you are sure, it's supposed to improve security, but you can easily turn it off, and if you set out to do something then of course you say proceed, even if it's installing a trojan that wasn't picked up by the add on security system. Visual Studio 2010 doesn't give me anything I don't already have or find useful in Visual studio 2008, yes it has better integration with MS SQL Server, and Silverlight, but that doesn't make me more productive, and many of the "intelligent" bits just get in my way. Silverlight it's just a different way of doing what can be done with Flash, yes it's integrated into Visual Studio, which means that if you choose the whole Silverlight Visual Studio thing you can right lots of media based applications trivially, at the expense of being less flexible in your approach to this sort of application. But it's not as if Microsoft has done something out of the ordinary and new. |
| azerthoth May 27, 2009 10:53 PM EDT |
*sheepish grin* sorry gus should have been @hkwint darn it gus, how come you cant just accept an invitation to argue again? nag dab it. |
| tracyanne May 27, 2009 11:44 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: Yes I'm aware of those people. The reason I put in my comment was because everytime I demonstrate Linux to ordinary computer users, or get ordinary computer users to try Linux, they like it, and every time I read about people who claim to have tried Linux they are invariably someone with similar windows experience as I had/have, Windows power users. I wanted to change, usually the people who claim to have tried Linux and went back to Windows are looking for a freebie Windows. |
| gus3 May 28, 2009 12:07 AM EDT |
@az: The only time I rip something into MP3 is when I want to play it through my cell phone's music player. Otherwise, I go strictly with Ogg Vorbis (with the exception of a single FLAC file). So, am I a pirate for using MP3 where convenient, and Ogg Vorbis everywhere else? Discuss. |
| tuxchick May 28, 2009 12:22 AM EDT |
I'd say no, gus, except for the eye patch and parrot. The weird thing about MP3 is even though there are several companies claiming to be patent holders and therefore deserving of royalties, none of them seem to go after the maintainers of FOSS MP3 encoders, or anyone who distributes their works in MP3 format. At least not in the US. The LAME FAQ is a splendid demonstration of fancy verbal footwork: http://lame.sourceforge.net/tech-FAQ.txt Quoting: LAME, as the name says, is *not* an encoder. LAME is a development project which uses the open source model to improve MP3 technology. Many people believe that compiling this code and distributing an encoder which uses this code would violate some patents (in the US, Europe and Japan). However, *only* a patent lawyer is qualified to make this determination. The LAME project tries to avoid all these legal issues by only releasing source code, much like the ISO distributes MP3 "demonstration" source code. Source code is considered as speech, which may contain descriptions of patented technology. Descriptions of patents are in the public domain. |
| caitlyn May 28, 2009 12:23 AM EDT |
Heck, I thought you were a pirate, Gus, because of the eyepatch and the skull and crossbones flag. I'm not confusing you with another Gus, am I? |
| caitlyn May 28, 2009 12:37 AM EDT |
Tuxchick beat me to it. OK, so I have the right Gus :) Nice parrot. Seriously, you are probably infringing on a patent. However, if its a patent that the holder(s) have chosen not to enforce then I wouldn't worry about it unless it somehow violates your own sense of ethics and morals. Now, if you then rip your collection of 75 Philip Glass CDs and put it up on The Pirate Bay I would think you'd be guilty of piracy. |
| hkwint May 28, 2009 10:28 AM EDT |
@az:
Quoting:You have confused 2 issues, software patents and digital piracy. Doesn't matter, because WIPO doesn't make that difference. Digital piracy is copyright infringement (whether it's redistributing codecs without permission or movies on some torrent site), in the case of software patents there's patent infringement, together they are IP. Not making that distinction is where the IP in "WIPO" comes from. They love to confuse everyone. And when Steve Ballmer threatened Asia it was definitely about patents, and not about piracy. |
| softwarejanitor May 28, 2009 4:16 PM EDT |
How long is it until the MP3 patents run out? |
| Sander_Marechal May 28, 2009 4:29 PM EDT |
@softwarejanitor: The are multiple patents held by various companies. Some have already expired, some have not. The last one expires in 2017: http://www.tunequest.org/a-big-list-of-mp3-patents/20070226/ |
| softwarejanitor May 28, 2009 4:49 PM EDT |
Thanks Sander... I also found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3 which basically told me the same thing. Looks like most of the most serious ones run out by 2012, so the light at the end of the tunnel is starting to get a little closer. 2017 is still a ways away though, but those of us geezerly enough to remember the years prior to the RSA patents expiring know that it will come eventually. |
| hkwint May 28, 2009 7:15 PM EDT |
Hmm, I guess MP3 has been a good cash cow for the patent holders; considered the amount of MP3 playing devices - such as telephones, iPods (they do play MP3's don't they?), car radio's and WMP-licenses have been sold. If we suggest the number of MP3-playing devices and products to be around 1 billion or so (probably conservative, as Windows users have to pay for XP, Vista and 7; meaning three times! And then again for their iPod and car radio), royalties have been around 750M. Not bad for technology of which a large part was invented around 1800 (for Fourier) and 1950 (for Huffman). |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!