K3b & MAD (MP3)

[Peter Lewis]

On Tuesday 12 June 2007 at 23:02:58 Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> 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...

Interesting. I'm not sure what the wording in the UK / EU is.

> >>> 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.

Hmm, yes, this is on a page related to streaming. Though it does specifically 
include "No license is needed for [...] creating a personal music library".

The website is quite unclear though IMO as it indicates that it only licences 
the technology to software developers. Clearly that doesn't quite fit with an 
open source development model.

> >>> 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.

Oh sure, sorry I didn't mean that it violates the GPL or anything. It's just 
that by including the patentned "personal use" licenced stuff in the same 
distribution bundle as the generic Ubuntu, they wouldn't be able to 
distribute it (the whole thing) to anyone intending anything other than 
personal use. The easy way around this is to keep the mp3 codecs seperate.

Though of course this depends entirely on how you read the clauses on their 
website. I think that the FFmpeg guys got it about right when they described 
licence fees as "protection money" (http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/legal.html).

This confusion is yet another reason to just use ogg.... www.getogg.org

Pete.