I know this kind of question has been beaten to death, but bear with me. I recently read this on the Linux Mint website:
"Light Edition
This edition aims to provide the same features as the Main
Edition without including proprietary software, patented
technologies or support for restricted formats. If you're a
magazine, a reseller or a distributor in Japan or in the USA then
choose this edition." (emphasis mine)
I thought it was illegal for anyone at all to download the Main Edition in the USA, but this quote seems to indicate its only illegal for me to distribute it. I'm curious if the American/Japanese laws have been clarified recently, and why the Light Edition is recommended for redistribution purposes instead of recommended for all American users? In short, has the law been clarified, allowing me to download the Main Edition for personal use?
Can I legally DL the Main Edition
Forum rules
Before you post please read this
Before you post please read this
-
belovedmonster
- Level 5
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:34 pm
Re: Can I legally DL the Main Edition
I'm not an expert on US patent law so I wouldn't like to comment with any authority on the exact implications. But as I understand it, if a product is breaking one of your patents you can't sue someone who bought that infringing product you sue the other company that is producing the product or distributing it. In other words, you are probably OK if you are just downloading it. But I'm not a lawyer.
But frankly, in this day and age where every kid has $1000s worth of pirated mp3s and movies and no one bats an eye lid I think you can sleep easy knowing your worst crime is downloading a version of Mint that comes with a few video codecs preinstalled which you would only add yourself if they weren't. Especially when this is legal in every other country in the world. But again, I'm not a lawyer.
But frankly, in this day and age where every kid has $1000s worth of pirated mp3s and movies and no one bats an eye lid I think you can sleep easy knowing your worst crime is downloading a version of Mint that comes with a few video codecs preinstalled which you would only add yourself if they weren't. Especially when this is legal in every other country in the world. But again, I'm not a lawyer.
Re: Can I legally DL the Main Edition
I'm not a lawyer either and I have to admit I'm not fond of spending time thinking about things like that... but here are my thoughts on the matter.
If Joe, living in the USA, goes to ubuntu.com, downloads Ubuntu and then later installs the codecs from the repositories...
And if Jeff, living in the USA, goes to linuxmint.com, looks at the Light edition but decides to download the Main one...
In the end of the day, both Joe and Jeff are running these codecs, both Joe and Jeff downloaded them and had the choice not to. Whatever the situation is, it's the same situation for both of them.
Now, is it 100% safe and legal to do that in the USA? I don't know, but who cares? People need codecs so they run them anyway... looking at it from that point of view, and knowing that everybody does that, it doesn't really matter what's written in the law. Some people argue that the law is to be followed, but the truth is, the law has only one reason to be, and that is to follow what people want for a society. What's important REALLY, is not to follow the law (very few people "know" the law anyway) but to respect what's commonly defined as good for the societies we live in. Be a decent member of the community, that's all that matters.
In a very similar manner, a dictionary follows and documents a language, it doesn't define it. Nobody speaks Cambridge or Oxford. People speak English, and dictionaries are more or less accurate at capturing what English actually is.
The law is more or less accurate at capturing what people want it to be and what is good for a society. If we're talking about codecs, about paying companies which have nothing to do with theses codecs simply because they bought some patents or lobbied some piece of a legal system to ensure people couldn't decrypt or read things as commonly used as DVDs... then there's no question about legitimacy or about whether or not such thing is good for our societies. Whether it's actually in the law is irrelevant really.
Now, to be pragmatic and to summarize simply:
- Users have nothing to fear since everybody uses codecs and reads DVDs. Whether they download Main or whether they download Light and later add the codecs, is exactly the same anyway.
- Distributors are much more vulnerable and they shouldn't take risks, especially in countries where patent lawsuits can be a lucrative business activity. They should go for the Light edition.
- Whether the problem in the USA resides in the legislation itself, or the danger raised by patent owners... I'm actually not sure, a lawyer would make that clearer.
PS: I'm not trying to be provocative here or to tell anyone to go against their national legislation but I think it's important to see that the law is more a reference in case of litigation than it is a code of conduct. I rent at least a movie a week... sometimes my in-laws watch it with us, do I care whether I can legally "play" it in front of them? No, not really. I buy cartoons for the kids on DVD because that's what they sell in the shop. The minute I get home they get ripped onto my portable Archos device because this way they can watch it in bed and the cartoon doesn't get scratched. Am I legally using my right to make a "personal copy"? Or am I "breaking the law"? Either way I don't care one bit. It doesn't feel wrong for me to do it and that's what I want/need to do, so it just gets done and I don't give it much thinking. I'm sure I could be "sued" technically over ripping my own DVD, but hey.. how many times did I break the law this year without knowing it? I don't really know... I'm not a lawyer
If you believe in Free Software and you can do without these codecs, then do. Don't download them.
If you need these codecs because you're used to watch online multimedia content or you're locked in these technologies after you bought encrypted DVDs or got DivX..etc, then download them.
It's all about what you need and whether you can do without or not. The law doesn't have much to do with it really.
My opinion.
Clem.
If Joe, living in the USA, goes to ubuntu.com, downloads Ubuntu and then later installs the codecs from the repositories...
And if Jeff, living in the USA, goes to linuxmint.com, looks at the Light edition but decides to download the Main one...
In the end of the day, both Joe and Jeff are running these codecs, both Joe and Jeff downloaded them and had the choice not to. Whatever the situation is, it's the same situation for both of them.
Now, is it 100% safe and legal to do that in the USA? I don't know, but who cares? People need codecs so they run them anyway... looking at it from that point of view, and knowing that everybody does that, it doesn't really matter what's written in the law. Some people argue that the law is to be followed, but the truth is, the law has only one reason to be, and that is to follow what people want for a society. What's important REALLY, is not to follow the law (very few people "know" the law anyway) but to respect what's commonly defined as good for the societies we live in. Be a decent member of the community, that's all that matters.
In a very similar manner, a dictionary follows and documents a language, it doesn't define it. Nobody speaks Cambridge or Oxford. People speak English, and dictionaries are more or less accurate at capturing what English actually is.
The law is more or less accurate at capturing what people want it to be and what is good for a society. If we're talking about codecs, about paying companies which have nothing to do with theses codecs simply because they bought some patents or lobbied some piece of a legal system to ensure people couldn't decrypt or read things as commonly used as DVDs... then there's no question about legitimacy or about whether or not such thing is good for our societies. Whether it's actually in the law is irrelevant really.
Now, to be pragmatic and to summarize simply:
- Users have nothing to fear since everybody uses codecs and reads DVDs. Whether they download Main or whether they download Light and later add the codecs, is exactly the same anyway.
- Distributors are much more vulnerable and they shouldn't take risks, especially in countries where patent lawsuits can be a lucrative business activity. They should go for the Light edition.
- Whether the problem in the USA resides in the legislation itself, or the danger raised by patent owners... I'm actually not sure, a lawyer would make that clearer.
PS: I'm not trying to be provocative here or to tell anyone to go against their national legislation but I think it's important to see that the law is more a reference in case of litigation than it is a code of conduct. I rent at least a movie a week... sometimes my in-laws watch it with us, do I care whether I can legally "play" it in front of them? No, not really. I buy cartoons for the kids on DVD because that's what they sell in the shop. The minute I get home they get ripped onto my portable Archos device because this way they can watch it in bed and the cartoon doesn't get scratched. Am I legally using my right to make a "personal copy"? Or am I "breaking the law"? Either way I don't care one bit. It doesn't feel wrong for me to do it and that's what I want/need to do, so it just gets done and I don't give it much thinking. I'm sure I could be "sued" technically over ripping my own DVD, but hey.. how many times did I break the law this year without knowing it? I don't really know... I'm not a lawyer
If you believe in Free Software and you can do without these codecs, then do. Don't download them.
If you need these codecs because you're used to watch online multimedia content or you're locked in these technologies after you bought encrypted DVDs or got DivX..etc, then download them.
It's all about what you need and whether you can do without or not. The law doesn't have much to do with it really.
My opinion.
Clem.
-
jackelope84
Re: Can I legally DL the Main Edition
Thanks, everyone. I know its not really a practical issue, but I find the evolving info laws interesting...and quite often ridiculous. I was *hoping* the law had come to its senses, but I suppose its the same old thing. Thanks again.
Re: Can I legally DL the Main Edition
Clem,
Do you worry at some point that someone will cause trouble (legal/patent/copyright etc) ?
This is such a complex issue, in some countries copyright and/or patent is not criminal or legally enforceable, but in others it is; in some countries it is criminal only for distribution, but allow things like fair use or personal use without any kind of infringement of law/copyright or patent.
IMHO the current approach of 2 versions and letting the user choose is a good one.
Having a quick google I have found out the following:
Propietary drivers (ATi and Nvidia are the common examples), have licence issues, sometimes over redistribution and sometimes due to not being GPL compatibile.
Other common issues:
MP3 has patents (Thompson and Frauenhofer and others ) on certain parts for encoding and decoding, which in some countries restrict distribution and possibly usage.
libdvdcss is a bit more complex as there are laws (in certain countries) that prevent you even legally using it as it technically is used to break encryption, so this goes beyond just pure licencing or patent issues.
DVD playback also has the issue that mpeg2 MAY have patents.
Be aware some Countries have a lot of media coverage (eg USA DMCA) stating how nasty/bad it is to defect encrytion, but then have far less publicised rules that allow it for personal use AND/OR interoperability.
For example the MPAA (http://www.mpaa.org/DVD_FAQ.asp) is rather clever, because if you read it carefully, it never actually says DeCSS is illegal or breaks copyright, they use words like unauthorised (no legal standing as no copyrights or patents broken), and possible to make illegal copies.
But they state contradictory things like:
Point is, there are many people spreading FUD, along with many grey areas (eg proof of copyright/patents claimed), makes making a set of clear internationally acceptable rules pretty much impossible and why you find differences between most distributions !
Useful link:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FreeF ... 0Resources
Hope this helps,
Cheers, Nick
Do you worry at some point that someone will cause trouble (legal/patent/copyright etc) ?
This is such a complex issue, in some countries copyright and/or patent is not criminal or legally enforceable, but in others it is; in some countries it is criminal only for distribution, but allow things like fair use or personal use without any kind of infringement of law/copyright or patent.
IMHO the current approach of 2 versions and letting the user choose is a good one.
Having a quick google I have found out the following:
Propietary drivers (ATi and Nvidia are the common examples), have licence issues, sometimes over redistribution and sometimes due to not being GPL compatibile.
Other common issues:
MP3 has patents (Thompson and Frauenhofer and others ) on certain parts for encoding and decoding, which in some countries restrict distribution and possibly usage.
libdvdcss is a bit more complex as there are laws (in certain countries) that prevent you even legally using it as it technically is used to break encryption, so this goes beyond just pure licencing or patent issues.
DVD playback also has the issue that mpeg2 MAY have patents.
Be aware some Countries have a lot of media coverage (eg USA DMCA) stating how nasty/bad it is to defect encrytion, but then have far less publicised rules that allow it for personal use AND/OR interoperability.
For example the MPAA (http://www.mpaa.org/DVD_FAQ.asp) is rather clever, because if you read it carefully, it never actually says DeCSS is illegal or breaks copyright, they use words like unauthorised (no legal standing as no copyrights or patents broken), and possible to make illegal copies.
But they state contradictory things like:
how does that fit in with (still on the same FAQ page):DeCSS fits the definition of an unlawful copyright circumvention device as defined in the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
They then make a silly statement to try and fool the reader:The DMCA does allow a lawful user of a computer program to circumvent TPMs to ensure that the program can work with other programs (interoperability)
But not for Linux on a GPL complaint distribution, as they would have to freely provide the source for their CSS decryption implementation.However, reverse engineering is not permissible if there is a readily available commercial alternative for that purpose . In this case, there exist MANY commercially available DVD player
Point is, there are many people spreading FUD, along with many grey areas (eg proof of copyright/patents claimed), makes making a set of clear internationally acceptable rules pretty much impossible and why you find differences between most distributions !
Useful link:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FreeF ... 0Resources
Hope this helps,
Cheers, Nick
Re: Can I legally DL the Main Edition
I think that the availability of the Light distro is a nice CYA for Clem.
I think Nick makes the best point: there is a lot of grey-area interpretation and FUD involved in this.
Bottom line is people will use what they will, and Clem is no more "making available" than is Ubuntu. Mint is an Ubuntu-derivative. Tying Mint to Ubuntu is another nice CYA for Clem.
I think Nick makes the best point: there is a lot of grey-area interpretation and FUD involved in this.
Bottom line is people will use what they will, and Clem is no more "making available" than is Ubuntu. Mint is an Ubuntu-derivative. Tying Mint to Ubuntu is another nice CYA for Clem.