[Ubuntu-SG] Should we "Say No to Piracy"?
Tom Goh
tomgohj at gmail.com
Mon Jun 22 19:45:17 UTC 2009
Sorry for being so long winded and passionate about this. I worked for
a company that primarily dealt with companies that were under litigation
for patent infringements. Prior to that I was just happy using FOSS but
after I really learned what it was all about it really disgusted me.
John Thng wrote:
> 2009/6/22 Nick HS <nick at daenim.com <mailto:nick at daenim.com>>
>
> On Monday 22,June,2009 07:06 PM, suhaw koh wrote:
>> Hi Chew,
>>
>> Many thanks for your input: They are most instructive in this
>> discussion.
>>
>> Yes, I fully agree that there are many ambiguities in the law:
>> Being very broadly worded, they may (or may not) cover many
>> aspects. And the truth is that nobody (even lawyers) can say for
>> certain whether any specific thing is or is not covered until they
>> are actually tested in the courts, ie somebody bring about a legal
>> suit.
>>
>> So, the only reliable guide we have as to what the law covers is
>> based on the cases that have been decided in the courts. Thus
>> far, the courts have been quite reasonable. For example, a strict
>> reading of the law would define the buffer and RAM memory in
>> computers as making illegal copies whenever a program is run, no
>> court would every take such a nonsensical interpretation.
>>
>> My point is simply that I propose we work on the assumption that
>> the law is reasonable and where there are undesireable features of
>> laws, we should work to helping the legislators/government iron
>> out the kinks.
>>
>> If we were to get bogged down by may/may-not questions, we will
>> never get anything done.
>>
>> And now for a little trivia regarding your point about "Perfectly
>> legal things that TUSG do could be promoting Ubuntu, having
>> release parties, open source education, etc." Check this
>> out: http://www.elections.gov.sg/agc/presidentialSubLeg10.htm
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>>
>> suhaw
>>
>>
>>
>> 2009/6/22 chewearn <chew4097 at gmail.com <mailto:chew4097 at gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2009/6/22 suhaw koh <kohsuhaw at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kohsuhaw at gmail.com>>
>>
>> Hi Chew,
>>
>>
>> 2009/6/22 chewearn <chew4097 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:chew4097 at gmail.com>>
>>
>> 2009/6/22 suhaw koh <kohsuhaw at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kohsuhaw at gmail.com>>
>>
>> <edit>
>>
>> As for the more recent Nov 2008 DL article about
>> Sim Lim raids that Chew quoted, they are
>> specifically about modifying devices to circumvent
>> access control measures, ie modifying the Wii
>> machines to play pirated software.
>>
>>
>> <edit>
>>
>>
>> My point is that the Law could be broadly worded, such
>> that the "device" could reasonably be applied to a
>> Personal Computer.
>>
>>
>> Most laws are broadly worded as they cannot be expected to
>> deal with every minute detail.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In other word, the decss package *could* be considered
>> illegal in Singapore (just like in US), because it's
>> enable circumvention of the DVD access control.
>>
>>
>> While circumvention of DVD access control may be illegal,
>> we also know that there is also an express provision in
>> Section 261C(10) allowing for import or sale of devices
>> whose sole purpose is to control market segmentation for
>> access to films e.g. multi-coded DVD player.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I used the wrong words previously.
>>
>> What I meant by "access control" was of being able to
>> read/play but not copy a DVD; something which the CSS
>> encryption (together with the copy bits and DVD consortium
>> licensing agreement) is meant to do.
>>
>> I did not mean "access control" with respect to the DVD region
>> code. I agree that the Law has a specific exception to
>> invalidate DVD region coding.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> My personal opinion: in practice, Singapore is a very
>> pro-business country. It is very likely that anything
>> we do *in this matter* that would be detrimental to
>> "business" would get us into trouble.
>>
>>
>> In that case, the very existence of TUSG would get us into
>> trouble: Anything we may want to do can be considered as
>> being detrimental to business.
>>
>>
>> Let's not "over-extrapolate". I am referring to specific
>> potentially illegal circumvention packages, such as decss,
>> win32codecs, etc. (note: I emphasis the words "in this matter"
>> to my previous reply above).
>>
>>
>> Perfectly legal things that TUSG do could be promoting Ubuntu,
>> having release parties, open source education, etc.
>>
>>
>> Btw, it seems we are going a bit off track from your initial
>> post. I don't mean to say I am against joining HIP (at the
>> moment, I am undecided).
>>
>> I replied to this thread because I have previously worked for
>> a MNC designing DVD devices, so I thought I could add my 2
>> cents knowledge in this area.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Chew
>>
>>
>
> I'm not for TUSG joining HIP as I (personally) fail to see how our
> agendas are aligned, and if push ever came to shove HIP and the
> Singapore government would be more then likely to trumpet the
> pro-business ideals along with strict patent laws. However that's
> just me :)
>
> Thanks Nick
>
> --
> Ubuntu-SG mailing list
> Ubuntu-SG at lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Ubuntu-SG at lists.ubuntu.com>
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-sg
>
>
> For patents, software patents should not last so long. Patents has been
> infecting the MP3 codec and others. There's no definite date when will
> MP3 codec be free.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues
>
> And do not confuse the term IP with others.
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
>
> Regards
> John
>
More information about the Ubuntu-SG
mailing list