K3b & MAD (MP3)

[Matthew Flaschen]

Peter Lewis wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 June 2007 18:22:07 Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>> Peter Lewis wrote:
>>> As I understand it, copyrighting is about asserting a moral right as the
>>> author of a work. A patent is a different beast entirely, originally
>>> devised for economic reasons rather than moral ones
>> At least in the USA, both were supposed to be economic incentives.
> 
> Interesting, I'm in the UK and have heard a number of lawyers describe 
> copyright as a moral right. I can understand the economic argument though.

The US constitution says, Congress can "promote the progress of science
and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors
the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
Nowhere does it say copyright is a natural right, contrary to what some
in the US would have you believe.  Authors and inventors get a
*temporary* government advantage in exchange for permanently improving
society.  Both rights are meant to benefit the public, not the rights
holder.  At least that's the way it's supposed to be...


>>> In the MP3 example, for institutional  use and distribution, you have
>> to pay
>>
>>> them a licence fee. For personal use you don't.
>> I'm pretty sure you do, even though they would be unlikely to actually
>> sue.  Why do you think there's an exception for this?
> 
>>From mp3licencing.com, the website of the consortium of MP3 patent holders:
> 
> "Note: No license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (eg: 
> home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music 
> library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for 
> entities with associated annual gross revenue less than US$100 000.00"

That is on http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/emd.html .  I think it means
you don't have to pay royalties for internal streaming.  To me, whether
they can really charge royalties under current law for streaming or
downloading is extremely questionable.  The technology used to stream or
offer MP3 for download is basically the same as for any other format and
I don't see how their patent could cover it.

But anyway, I don't think that covers the codec.
> 
> This is AFAICT the clause allowing end users to download and integrate MP3 
> codecs into their systems.
> 
>>> Therefore, Ubuntu can't ship
>>> the codec (as they are an organisation, distributing it to whomever under
>>> the GPL), but can't guarantee that personal use is its only intent
>>> (indeed it's contrary to the spirit of the free software).
>> Right, but by offering it for download from their servers, they're still
>>  distributing illegallly, just on a smaller, less traceable scale.
> 
> I think the issue is about a conflict with the licences, requiring it to be a 
> separate download. A free software system can't be compatible with the above 
> clause, as it allows use and distribution "for any purpose".

No, it doesn't violate the free software licenses (unless Ubuntu got
some exclusive patent license just for themselves, which they haven't).
 It's just trying to appease the patent holder.

Matt Flaschen