Discussion:
Linux, DVD's and GPLv3
(too old to reply)
Mickey Mouse
2007-07-27 23:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Just how do Linux users legally play MPEG2 encoded data (used in DVD's)
without an accompanying licence to do so? Do they individually sign an
agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to ensure
they aren't in breach? And just what are the implications of entering into
such licensing agreements under GPLv3?

http://www.mpegla.com/m2/
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2007-07-27 23:44:15 UTC
Permalink
In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:

> Do they individually sign an
> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to ensure
> they aren't in breach?

Patented under which jurisdictions?
impossible
2007-07-28 00:27:16 UTC
Permalink
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:f8dvs2$qs8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>
>> Do they individually sign an
>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to ensure
>> they aren't in breach?
>
> Patented under which jurisdictions?
>

Since IP is now globally protected by the WTO, it doesn't matter.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2007-07-28 00:47:50 UTC
Permalink
In message <k_GdndJ-***@comcast.com>, impossible wrote:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:f8dvs2$qs8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>
>>> Do they individually sign an
>>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to
>>> ensure they aren't in breach?
>>
>> Patented under which jurisdictions?
>>
> Since IP is now globally protected by the WTO, it doesn't matter.

The WTO's job is not to "protect IP" or act as some kind of global patent
enforcer. There is no global treaty for recognizing other countries'
patents, the way the Berne convention enforces global copyright, for
instance--patents still have to be applied for individually in different
jurisdictions. See section 5 of TRIPS, articles 27-34, which spell out the
rights and reponsibilities of member states regarding patents.
Shane
2007-07-28 00:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In message <k_GdndJ-***@comcast.com>, impossible
> wrote:
>
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:f8dvs2$qs8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>> In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do they individually sign an
>>>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to
>>>> ensure they aren't in breach?
>>>
>>> Patented under which jurisdictions?
>>>
>> Since IP is now globally protected by the WTO, it doesn't matter.
>
> The WTO's job is not to "protect IP" or act as some kind of global patent
> enforcer. There is no global treaty for recognizing other countries'
> patents, the way the Berne convention enforces global copyright, for
> instance--patents still have to be applied for individually in different
> jurisdictions. See section 5 of TRIPS, articles 27-34, which spell out the
> rights and reponsibilities of member states regarding patents.

I presume the nym you are talking to includes all the p2p downloading that
people (running windows oddly enough) proudly boast about, in his wee IP
crusade.

--
Q: What is the difference between a mathematician and a philosopher?
A: The mathematician only needs paper, pencil, and a trash bin for his
work - the philosopher can do without the trash bin...
impossible
2007-07-28 02:08:37 UTC
Permalink
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:f8e3ja$297$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <k_GdndJ-***@comcast.com>, impossible
> wrote:
>
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:f8dvs2$qs8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>> In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do they individually sign an
>>>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to
>>>> ensure they aren't in breach?
>>>
>>> Patented under which jurisdictions?
>>>
>> Since IP is now globally protected by the WTO, it doesn't matter.
>
> The WTO's job is not to "protect IP" or act as some kind of global patent
> enforcer. There is no global treaty for recognizing other countries'
> patents, the way the Berne convention enforces global copyright, for
> instance--patents still have to be applied for individually in different
> jurisdictions. See section 5 of TRIPS, articles 27-34, which spell out the
> rights and reponsibilities of member states regarding patents.

TRIPS stipulates that member states are responsible for enforcement of IP,
regardless of its point of nnational origin, and member states that do not
comply face WTO sanctions. So which jurisdictions are you claiming are
exempt from the MPEG LA?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2007-07-28 02:29:35 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible wrote:

>
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:f8e3ja$297$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In message <k_GdndJ-***@comcast.com>, impossible
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>> message news:f8dvs2$qs8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>> In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do they individually sign an
>>>>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to
>>>>> ensure they aren't in breach?
>>>>
>>>> Patented under which jurisdictions?
>>>>
>>> Since IP is now globally protected by the WTO, it doesn't matter.
>>
>> The WTO's job is not to "protect IP" or act as some kind of global patent
>> enforcer. There is no global treaty for recognizing other countries'
>> patents, the way the Berne convention enforces global copyright, for
>> instance--patents still have to be applied for individually in different
>> jurisdictions. See section 5 of TRIPS, articles 27-34, which spell out
>> the rights and reponsibilities of member states regarding patents.
>
> TRIPS stipulates that member states are responsible for enforcement of IP,
> regardless of its point of nnational origin, and member states that do not
> comply face WTO sanctions.

The primary job of the WTO is to ensure free trade, not enforce IP. If
there's a conflict between the two, then free trade prevails
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/23/antigua_wto_us_gambling/>.

> So which jurisdictions are you claiming are exempt from the MPEG LA?

All those in which its patents do not apply.
impossible
2007-07-28 03:25:16 UTC
Permalink
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:f8e9i2$c78$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:f8e3ja$297$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>> In message <k_GdndJ-***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>> message news:f8dvs2$qs8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>> In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do they individually sign an
>>>>>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to
>>>>>> ensure they aren't in breach?
>>>>>
>>>>> Patented under which jurisdictions?
>>>>>
>>>> Since IP is now globally protected by the WTO, it doesn't matter.
>>>
>>> The WTO's job is not to "protect IP" or act as some kind of global
>>> patent
>>> enforcer. There is no global treaty for recognizing other countries'
>>> patents, the way the Berne convention enforces global copyright, for
>>> instance--patents still have to be applied for individually in different
>>> jurisdictions. See section 5 of TRIPS, articles 27-34, which spell out
>>> the rights and reponsibilities of member states regarding patents.
>>
>> TRIPS stipulates that member states are responsible for enforcement of
>> IP,
>> regardless of its point of nnational origin, and member states that do
>> not
>> comply face WTO sanctions.
>
> The primary job of the WTO is to ensure free trade, not enforce IP. If
> there's a conflict between the two, then free trade prevails

There's no conflict at all. To ensure free trade in IP, the WTO requires
memeber countires to enforce all relevant patents and coipyrights.

> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/23/antigua_wto_us_gambling/>.
>

Gambling? This has what to do with IP?

>> So which jurisdictions are you claiming are exempt from the MPEG LA?
>
> All those in which its patents do not apply.

Since patents aplply in all 139 countries that are members of the WTO, your
list will be short..
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2007-07-28 03:53:18 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible wrote:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:f8e9i2$c78$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>> message news:f8e3ja$297$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>> In message <k_GdndJ-***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>>> message news:f8dvs2$qs8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>>> In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do they individually sign an
>>>>>>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to
>>>>>>> ensure they aren't in breach?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patented under which jurisdictions?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Since IP is now globally protected by the WTO, it doesn't matter.
>>>>
>>>> The WTO's job is not to "protect IP" or act as some kind of global
>>>> patent enforcer. There is no global treaty for recognizing other
>>>> countries' patents, the way the Berne convention enforces global
>>>> copyright, for instance--patents still have to be applied for
>>>> individually in different jurisdictions. See section 5 of TRIPS,
>>>> articles 27-34, which spell out the rights and reponsibilities of
>>>> member states regarding patents.
>>>
>>> TRIPS stipulates that member states are responsible for enforcement of
>>> IP, regardless of its point of nnational origin, and member states that
>>> do not comply face WTO sanctions.
>>
>> The primary job of the WTO is to ensure free trade, not enforce IP. If
>> there's a conflict between the two, then free trade prevails
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/23/antigua_wto_us_gambling/>.
>
> Gambling? This has what to do with IP?

Note the remedies that Antigua has available because the US has violated its
free trade rights--these include suspension of IP agreements. Thus, free
trade trumps IP.

>>> So which jurisdictions are you claiming are exempt from the MPEG LA?
>>
>> All those in which its patents do not apply.
>
> Since patents aplply in all 139 countries that are members of the WTO,
> your list will be short..

OK, now please come up with NZ registrations for all the patents claimed by
MPEG-LA. I'll make it easy for you, by not asking for equivalent
registrations for all other WTO members...
impossible
2007-07-28 04:27:53 UTC
Permalink
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:f8eef2$ku8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
> wrote:
>
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:f8e9i2$c78$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>> message news:f8e3ja$297$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>> In message <k_GdndJ-***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:f8dvs2$qs8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>>>> In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do they individually sign an
>>>>>>>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to
>>>>>>>> ensure they aren't in breach?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Patented under which jurisdictions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since IP is now globally protected by the WTO, it doesn't matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> The WTO's job is not to "protect IP" or act as some kind of global
>>>>> patent enforcer. There is no global treaty for recognizing other
>>>>> countries' patents, the way the Berne convention enforces global
>>>>> copyright, for instance--patents still have to be applied for
>>>>> individually in different jurisdictions. See section 5 of TRIPS,
>>>>> articles 27-34, which spell out the rights and reponsibilities of
>>>>> member states regarding patents.
>>>>
>>>> TRIPS stipulates that member states are responsible for enforcement of
>>>> IP, regardless of its point of nnational origin, and member states that
>>>> do not comply face WTO sanctions.
>>>
>>> The primary job of the WTO is to ensure free trade, not enforce IP. If
>>> there's a conflict between the two, then free trade prevails

>> There's no conflict at all. To ensure free trade in IP, the WTO requires
>> memeber countires to enforce all relevant patents and coipyrights.

>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/23/antigua_wto_us_gambling/>.
>>

>> Gambling? This has what to do with IP?
>
> Note the remedies that Antigua has available because the US has violated
> its
> free trade rights--these include suspension of IP agreements. Thus, free
> trade trumps IP.
>

Since so much free trade relies on IP, it would be silly to argue that one
"trumps" the other. Antigua has **applied** to the WTO to have its IP
agreements with the US suspended in retaliation for US interference in
online gambling. Fine, we'll see how that pans out.. But we can agree then,
as I said before, that the WTO's standing protection of IP rights under
TRIPS applies to all its members. Yes? And that no country can, on its own,
suspend those protections? Yes?

>
>>>> So which jurisdictions are you claiming are exempt from the MPEG LA?
>>>
>>> All those in which its patents do not apply.
>>
>> Since patents aplply in all 139 countries that are members of the WTO,
>> your list will be short..
>
> OK, now please come up with NZ registrations for all the patents claimed
> by
> MPEG-LA. I'll make it easy for you, by not asking for equivalent
> registrations for all other WTO members...

NZ registrations are irrelevant. IP is IP, regardless of
country-of-origin -- that's what the TRIPS agreement was all about. And in
this area of global commerce, among others, the WTO's authority to enforce
its dictates supersedes that of national governments.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2007-07-28 04:52:29 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible wrote:

>
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:f8eef2$ku8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>> message news:f8e9i2$c78$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>>> message news:f8e3ja$297$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>>> In message <k_GdndJ-***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:f8dvs2$qs8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>>>>> In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do they individually sign an
>>>>>>>>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to
>>>>>>>>> ensure they aren't in breach?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Patented under which jurisdictions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since IP is now globally protected by the WTO, it doesn't matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The WTO's job is not to "protect IP" or act as some kind of global
>>>>>> patent enforcer. There is no global treaty for recognizing other
>>>>>> countries' patents, the way the Berne convention enforces global
>>>>>> copyright, for instance--patents still have to be applied for
>>>>>> individually in different jurisdictions. See section 5 of TRIPS,
>>>>>> articles 27-34, which spell out the rights and reponsibilities of
>>>>>> member states regarding patents.
>>>>>
>>>>> TRIPS stipulates that member states are responsible for enforcement of
>>>>> IP, regardless of its point of nnational origin, and member states
>>>>> that do not comply face WTO sanctions.
>>>>
>>>> The primary job of the WTO is to ensure free trade, not enforce IP. If
>>>> there's a conflict between the two, then free trade prevails
>
>>> There's no conflict at all. To ensure free trade in IP, the WTO requires
>>> memeber countires to enforce all relevant patents and coipyrights.
>
>>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/23/antigua_wto_us_gambling/>.
>>>
>
>>> Gambling? This has what to do with IP?
>>
>> Note the remedies that Antigua has available because the US has violated
>> its free trade rights--these include suspension of IP agreements. Thus,
>> free trade trumps IP.
>>
>
> Since so much free trade relies on IP, it would be silly to argue that one
> "trumps" the other. Antigua has **applied** to the WTO to have its IP
> agreements with the US suspended in retaliation for US interference in
> online gambling. Fine, we'll see how that pans out..

Let's just say the odds for the US are not looking good
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/21/wto_antigua_us_gambling_eu_india_japan/>.

> But we can agree then, as I said before, that the WTO's standing
> protection of IP rights under TRIPS applies to all its members. Yes? And
> that no country can, on its own, suspend those protections? Yes?

Such suspension is certainly allowed in certain cases under WTO rules. As in
the case above.

>>>>> So which jurisdictions are you claiming are exempt from the MPEG LA?
>>>>
>>>> All those in which its patents do not apply.
>>>
>>> Since patents aplply in all 139 countries that are members of the WTO,
>>> your list will be short..
>>
>> OK, now please come up with NZ registrations for all the patents claimed
>> by MPEG-LA. I'll make it easy for you, by not asking for equivalent
>> registrations for all other WTO members...
>
> NZ registrations are irrelevant. IP is IP, regardless of
> country-of-origin -- that's what the TRIPS agreement was all about.

Where does it say that in the TRIPS agreement? Please quote relevant parts.
The TRIPS agreement specifically mentions the Berne convention with regard
to global enforcement of copyrights in member states, but there is no
corresponding mention of global enforcement of patents in member states.
impossible
2007-07-28 05:05:28 UTC
Permalink
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:f8ehu1$roa$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:f8eef2$ku8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>> message news:f8e9i2$c78$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:f8e3ja$297$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>>>> In message <k_GdndJ-***@comcast.com>,
>>>>>>> impossible
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>>>>>> message news:f8dvs2$qs8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>>>>>> In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do they individually sign an
>>>>>>>>>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> ensure they aren't in breach?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Patented under which jurisdictions?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since IP is now globally protected by the WTO, it doesn't matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The WTO's job is not to "protect IP" or act as some kind of global
>>>>>>> patent enforcer. There is no global treaty for recognizing other
>>>>>>> countries' patents, the way the Berne convention enforces global
>>>>>>> copyright, for instance--patents still have to be applied for
>>>>>>> individually in different jurisdictions. See section 5 of TRIPS,
>>>>>>> articles 27-34, which spell out the rights and reponsibilities of
>>>>>>> member states regarding patents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TRIPS stipulates that member states are responsible for enforcement
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> IP, regardless of its point of nnational origin, and member states
>>>>>> that do not comply face WTO sanctions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The primary job of the WTO is to ensure free trade, not enforce IP. If
>>>>> there's a conflict between the two, then free trade prevails
>>
>>>> There's no conflict at all. To ensure free trade in IP, the WTO
>>>> requires
>>>> memeber countires to enforce all relevant patents and coipyrights.
>>
>>>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/23/antigua_wto_us_gambling/>.
>>>>
>>
>>>> Gambling? This has what to do with IP?
>>>
>>> Note the remedies that Antigua has available because the US has violated
>>> its free trade rights--these include suspension of IP agreements. Thus,
>>> free trade trumps IP.
>>>
>>
>> Since so much free trade relies on IP, it would be silly to argue that
>> one
>> "trumps" the other. Antigua has **applied** to the WTO to have its IP
>> agreements with the US suspended in retaliation for US interference in
>> online gambling. Fine, we'll see how that pans out..
>
> Let's just say the odds for the US are not looking good
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/21/wto_antigua_us_gambling_eu_india_japan/>.
>
>> But we can agree then, as I said before, that the WTO's standing
>> protection of IP rights under TRIPS applies to all its members. Yes? And
>> that no country can, on its own, suspend those protections? Yes?
>
> Such suspension is certainly allowed in certain cases under WTO rules. As
> in
> the case above.
>
>>>>>> So which jurisdictions are you claiming are exempt from the MPEG LA?
>>>>>
>>>>> All those in which its patents do not apply.
>>>>
>>>> Since patents aplply in all 139 countries that are members of the WTO,
>>>> your list will be short..
>>>
>>> OK, now please come up with NZ registrations for all the patents claimed
>>> by MPEG-LA. I'll make it easy for you, by not asking for equivalent
>>> registrations for all other WTO members...
>>
>> NZ registrations are irrelevant. IP is IP, regardless of
>> country-of-origin -- that's what the TRIPS agreement was all about.
>
> Where does it say that in the TRIPS agreement? Please quote relevant
> parts.
>

Never read it, did you?

TRIPS PART II
Standards concerning the availability, scope and use of Intellectual
Property Rights

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3c_e.htm#5

"1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be
available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields
of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are
capable of industrial application. (5) Subject to paragraph 4 of Article 65,
paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article, patents shall be
available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place
of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or
locally produced.
Mickey Mouse
2007-07-28 05:43:14 UTC
Permalink
"impossible" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:***@comcast.com...
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>>> NZ registrations are irrelevant. IP is IP, regardless of
>>> country-of-origin -- that's what the TRIPS agreement was all about.
>>
>> Where does it say that in the TRIPS agreement? Please quote relevant
>> parts.
>>
>
> Never read it, did you?
>
> TRIPS PART II
> Standards concerning the availability, scope and use of Intellectual
> Property Rights
>
> http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3c_e.htm#5
>
> "1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be
> available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields
> of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and
> are capable of industrial application. (5) Subject to paragraph 4 of
> Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article,
> patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without
> discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and
> whether products are imported or locally produced.

Furthermore (despite his weak protestations of jurisdiction), he will no
doubt be advocating the immediate cease and desist of all illegal unlicensed
use of MPEG2 and DVD's on Linux systems, as (no doubt he hates this fact)
Sony holds the following patent - NZ 261907-B, which forms a part of the
MPEG LA patent portfolio.
sam
2007-07-28 07:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Mickey Mouse wrote:
> "impossible" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:***@comcast.com...
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>>>> NZ registrations are irrelevant. IP is IP, regardless of
>>>> country-of-origin -- that's what the TRIPS agreement was all about.
>>>
>>> Where does it say that in the TRIPS agreement? Please quote relevant
>>> parts.
>>>
>>
>> Never read it, did you?
>>
>> TRIPS PART II
>> Standards concerning the availability, scope and use of Intellectual
>> Property Rights
>>
>> http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3c_e.htm#5
>>
>> "1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be
>> available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all
>> fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive
>> step and are capable of industrial application. (5) Subject to
>> paragraph 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3
>> of this Article, patents shall be available and patent rights
>> enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the
>> field of technology and whether products are imported or locally
>> produced.
>
> Furthermore (despite his weak protestations of jurisdiction), he will no
> doubt be advocating the immediate cease and desist of all illegal
> unlicensed use of MPEG2 and DVD's on Linux systems, as (no doubt he
> hates this fact) Sony holds the following patent - NZ 261907-B, which
> forms a part of the MPEG LA patent portfolio.

Only a complete dick would argue for players that implement region
control in NZ
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2007-07-28 05:44:02 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible wrote:

> http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3c_e.htm#5
>
> "1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be
> available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields
> of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and
> are capable of industrial application. (5) Subject to paragraph 4 of
> Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article,
> patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without
> discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and
> whether products are imported or locally produced.

So where does it say that patents registered in one country are
automatically valid in another?
impossible
2007-07-28 06:24:46 UTC
Permalink
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:f8ekum$1bh$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
> wrote:
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:f8ehu1$roa$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> news:f8eef2$ku8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:f8e9i2$c78$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>>>> In message <***@comcast.com>,
>>>>>>> impossible
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>>>>>> message news:f8e3ja$297$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>>>>>> In message <k_GdndJ-***@comcast.com>,
>>>>>>>>> impossible
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message news:f8dvs2$qs8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do they individually sign an
>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure they aren't in breach?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Patented under which jurisdictions?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since IP is now globally protected by the WTO, it doesn't matter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The WTO's job is not to "protect IP" or act as some kind of global
>>>>>>>>> patent enforcer. There is no global treaty for recognizing other
>>>>>>>>> countries' patents, the way the Berne convention enforces global
>>>>>>>>> copyright, for instance--patents still have to be applied for
>>>>>>>>> individually in different jurisdictions. See section 5 of TRIPS,
>>>>>>>>> articles 27-34, which spell out the rights and reponsibilities of
>>>>>>>>> member states regarding patents.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TRIPS stipulates that member states are responsible for enforcement
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> IP, regardless of its point of nnational origin, and member states
>>>>>>>> that do not comply face WTO sanctions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The primary job of the WTO is to ensure free trade, not enforce IP.
>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>> there's a conflict between the two, then free trade prevails
>>>>
>>>>>> There's no conflict at all. To ensure free trade in IP, the WTO
>>>>>> requires
>>>>>> memeber countires to enforce all relevant patents and coipyrights.
>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/23/antigua_wto_us_gambling/>.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Gambling? This has what to do with IP?
>>>>>
>>>>> Note the remedies that Antigua has available because the US has
>>>>> violated
>>>>> its free trade rights--these include suspension of IP agreements.
>>>>> Thus,
>>>>> free trade trumps IP.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since so much free trade relies on IP, it would be silly to argue that
>>>> one
>>>> "trumps" the other. Antigua has **applied** to the WTO to have its IP
>>>> agreements with the US suspended in retaliation for US interference in
>>>> online gambling. Fine, we'll see how that pans out..
>>>
>>> Let's just say the odds for the US are not looking good
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/21/wto_antigua_us_gambling_eu_india_japan/>.
>>>
>>>> But we can agree then, as I said before, that the WTO's standing
>>>> protection of IP rights under TRIPS applies to all its members. Yes?
>>>> And
>>>> that no country can, on its own, suspend those protections? Yes?
>>>
>>> Such suspension is certainly allowed in certain cases under WTO rules.
>>> As
>>> in
>>> the case above.
>>>
>>>>>>>> So which jurisdictions are you claiming are exempt from the MPEG
>>>>>>>> LA?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All those in which its patents do not apply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since patents aplply in all 139 countries that are members of the
>>>>>> WTO,
>>>>>> your list will be short..
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, now please come up with NZ registrations for all the patents
>>>>> claimed
>>>>> by MPEG-LA. I'll make it easy for you, by not asking for equivalent
>>>>> registrations for all other WTO members...
>>>>
>>>> NZ registrations are irrelevant. IP is IP, regardless of
>>>> country-of-origin -- that's what the TRIPS agreement was all about.
>>>
>>> Where does it say that in the TRIPS agreement? Please quote relevant
>>> parts.
>>>
>>
>> Never read it, did you?
>>
>> TRIPS PART II
>> Standards concerning the availability, scope and use of Intellectual
>> Property Rights
>>
>> http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3c_e.htm#5
>>
>> "1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be
>> available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all
>> fields
>> of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and
>> are
>> capable of industrial application. (5) Subject to paragraph 4 of Article
>> 65,
>> paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article, patents shall
>> be
>> available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the
>> place
>> of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported
>> or
>> locally produced.
>>
>>
>
> So where does it say that patents registered in one country are
> automatically valid in another?

Automatically? Who knows what that means? Point is, you're wrong to suggest
that countries (let alone the individuals residing in those countries) have
the right under WTO agreements to accept or reject the IP claims of foreign
nationals as they please. The default position of the WTO is quite clear:
that "...patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without
discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and
whether products are imported or locally produced". The burden of proof then
would be on those objecting to enforcement of patent claims in some
territory to demonstrate why those claims should be considered invalid.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2007-07-28 06:41:35 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible wrote:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:f8ekum$1bh$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>> wrote:
>
>>> http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3c_e.htm#5
>>>
>>> "1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be
>>> available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all
>>> fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive
>>> step and are capable of industrial application. (5) Subject to paragraph
>>> 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this
>>> Article, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without
>>> discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and
>>> whether products are imported or locally produced.
>>>
>> So where does it say that patents registered in one country are
>> automatically valid in another?
>
> Automatically? Who knows what that means?

In the sense of "not having to do any more work". That is, the MPEG-LA
patents, as registered in a jurisdiction outside New Zealand, such as the
US, are automatically enforceable in New Zealand without having to apply
for patent registrations in New Zealand. That's what I mean
by "automatically".
impossible
2007-07-28 14:39:38 UTC
Permalink
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:f8eoai$6vq$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
> wrote:
>
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:f8ekum$1bh$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>
>>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3c_e.htm#5
>>>>
>>>> "1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be
>>>> available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all
>>>> fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive
>>>> step and are capable of industrial application. (5) Subject to
>>>> paragraph
>>>> 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this
>>>> Article, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without
>>>> discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology
>>>> and
>>>> whether products are imported or locally produced.
>>>>
>>> So where does it say that patents registered in one country are
>>> automatically valid in another?
>>

>> Automatically? Who knows what that means?

>
> In the sense of "not having to do any more work". That is, the MPEG-LA
> patents, as registered in a jurisdiction outside New Zealand, such as the
> US, are automatically enforceable in New Zealand without having to apply
> for patent registrations in New Zealand. That's what I mean
> by "automatically".

Under the WTO regime, no foreign patent-holder has to apply for patent
registrations in New Zealand (or anywhere else) in order for their patents
to be enforceable in WTO-member countries. If you want to know more about
the details of how this process works, I suggest you follow the links I've
already supplied you.

>> Point is, you're wrong to suggest
>> that countries (let alone the individuals residing in those countries)
>> have
>> the right under WTO agreements to accept or reject the IP claims of
>> foreign
>> nationals as they please. The default position of the WTO is quite clear:
>> that "...patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without
>> discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and
>> whether products are imported or locally produced". The burden of proof
>> then
>> would be on those objecting to enforcement of patent claims in some
>> territory to demonstrate why those claims should be considered invalid.
sam
2007-07-28 22:00:28 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:f8eoai$6vq$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>>> news:f8ekum$1bh$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>
>>>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3c_e.htm#5
>>>>>
>>>>> "1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be
>>>>> available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all
>>>>> fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive
>>>>> step and are capable of industrial application. (5) Subject to
>>>>> paragraph
>>>>> 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this
>>>>> Article, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without
>>>>> discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology
>>>>> and
>>>>> whether products are imported or locally produced.
>>>>>
>>>> So where does it say that patents registered in one country are
>>>> automatically valid in another?
>
>>> Automatically? Who knows what that means?
>
> >
>> In the sense of "not having to do any more work". That is, the MPEG-LA
>> patents, as registered in a jurisdiction outside New Zealand, such as the
>> US, are automatically enforceable in New Zealand without having to apply
>> for patent registrations in New Zealand. That's what I mean
>> by "automatically".
>
> Under the WTO regime, no foreign patent-holder has to apply for patent
> registrations in New Zealand (or anywhere else) in order for their patents
> to be enforceable in WTO-member countries. If you want to know more about
> the details of how this process works, I suggest you follow the links I've
> already supplied you.
>

As soon as mpeg on behalf of their 960 patent licencees takes action at
their own cost to recover their share of the patent license fees that I
may owe them by running VLC on my Windows OS, I would be delighted to
pay them $US0.50 for the privilege. They might have to wait for a while
until I can afford it.
I note that running a proprietary operating system confers no indemnity,
even though they have licensed the proprietary DVD software provided
with my drive and another license provided with the OS, and I can use
neither concurrently with VLC, They have also licensed the player that
came with my Hauppauge tuner card and BT Conexant card which I am also
not using. I reckon they are ahead on the deal by about 4 or 5 licenses LOL
peterwn
2007-07-28 22:55:37 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:

>
> Under the WTO regime, no foreign patent-holder has to apply for patent
> registrations in New Zealand (or anywhere else) in order for their patents
> to be enforceable in WTO-member countries. If you want to know more about
> the details of how this process works, I suggest you follow the links I've
> already supplied you.
>

Complete total utter bullshit.

What the WTO regime is *trying* to achieve is harmonisation of patent
law between its member countries together with a requirement that
overseas based persons or corporations have access to a member country's
patent system (with regard to registration and enforcement) on the same
basis as a person or corporation resident in that country. The regime
does *not* establish 'world wide' patents. It is by no means fully
achieved, and it is not necessarily going to allow any particular nation
to dictate its patent law on others.

There is another problem here which many people are waking up to - that
of the patent where the value of protection conferred is out of all
proportion to the cost of effort of devising and developing the
invention. Or worse still the 'submarine' patent where the person who
registers the 'idea' waits for others to develop it before pouncing on
them with the patent (IMO this is white collar crime on a moral basis
although it may not be recognised by criminal or common law as such).
These pressures will in time lead to a rolling back of patent law
especially in nations whose governments tend to be resistant to lobbying
and corruption (eg NZ and some European countries). this is happening
even in USA with a recent Supreme Court ruling on patents.

WTO relies on chin-wagging and sanctions as enforcement mechanisms, WTO
cannot impose its rule of law on individual nations, except perhaps to
the extent that NZ courts may take treaties into account as an aid to
interpreting NZ law. The power of WTO is based on mutual goodwill
between members, its 'power' on any particular issue is dependent on the
overall political climate of the countries involved. In any case WTO
does not have complete control - eg NZ still cannot export apples to
Australia despite WTO intervention.

Nowhere does the WTO regime require that one member state enforce
patents obtained in another member state. If this were the case, there
would be no need for companies to register patents in any more than one
country, and there would be no need for the heavy lobbying that has been
taking place in Europe to allow software to be patented.
impossible
2007-07-28 23:31:30 UTC
Permalink
"peterwn" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:46abc962$***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> Under the WTO regime, no foreign patent-holder has to apply for patent
>> registrations in New Zealand (or anywhere else) in order for their
>> patents to be enforceable in WTO-member countries. If you want to know
>> more about the details of how this process works, I suggest you follow
>> the links I've already supplied you.
>>
>
> Complete total utter bullshit.
>
> What the WTO regime is *trying* to achieve is harmonisation of patent law
> between its member countries together with a requirement that overseas
> based persons or corporations have access to a member country's patent
> system (with regard to registration and enforcement) on the same basis as
> a person or corporation resident in that country. The regime does *not*
> establish 'world wide' patents. It is by no means fully achieved, and it
> is not necessarily going to allow any particular nation to dictate its
> patent law on others.
>
> There is another problem here which many people are waking up to - that of
> the patent where the value of protection conferred is out of all
> proportion to the cost of effort of devising and developing the invention.
> Or worse still the 'submarine' patent where the person who registers the
> 'idea' waits for others to develop it before pouncing on them with the
> patent (IMO this is white collar crime on a moral basis although it may
> not be recognised by criminal or common law as such). These pressures will
> in time lead to a rolling back of patent law especially in nations whose
> governments tend to be resistant to lobbying and corruption (eg NZ and
> some European countries). this is happening even in USA with a recent
> Supreme Court ruling on patents.
>
> WTO relies on chin-wagging and sanctions as enforcement mechanisms, WTO
> cannot impose its rule of law on individual nations, except perhaps to the
> extent that NZ courts may take treaties into account as an aid to
> interpreting NZ law. The power of WTO is based on mutual goodwill between
> members, its 'power' on any particular issue is dependent on the overall
> political climate of the countries involved. In any case WTO does not have
> complete control - eg NZ still cannot export apples to Australia despite
> WTO intervention.
>
> Nowhere does the WTO regime require that one member state enforce patents
> obtained in another member state. If this were the case, there would be
> no need for companies to register patents in any more than one country,
> and there would be no need for the heavy lobbying that has been taking
> place in Europe to allow software to be patented.

IBM owns 40,000 patents, of which exxactly 32 are registered in NZ
(accordining to the IPONZ database). Are you seriously suggesting that you
are free to steal the products and processes identified in the remaining
39,968 patents?
peterwn
2007-07-29 00:19:41 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:

>
> IBM owns 40,000 patents, of which exxactly 32 are registered in NZ
> (accordining to the IPONZ database). Are you seriously suggesting that you
> are free to steal the products and processes identified in the remaining
> 39,968 patents?
>
>

I am seriously suggesting that anyone within NZ is free to use the
products and processes in these 39,968 overseas patents, since such use
is not in breach of NZ law. IBM may not like it, but just has to accept it.

If this were not the case, then why did IBM bother registering the 32
patents that it did register in NZ?

The situation is of course different if products are exported from NZ to
a country where a patent in that country would be infringed.
impossible
2007-07-29 01:15:11 UTC
Permalink
"peterwn" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:46abdd18$***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> IBM owns 40,000 patents, of which exxactly 32 are registered in NZ
>> (accordining to the IPONZ database). Are you seriously suggesting that
>> you are free to steal the products and processes identified in the
>> remaining 39,968 patents?
>
> I am seriously suggesting that anyone within NZ is free to use the
> products and processes in these 39,968 overseas patents, since such use is
> not in breach of NZ law. IBM may not like it, but just has to accept it.
>

LOL. Got any examples of where this has had actually happenend? Other than
in your imagination, I mean.

> If this were not the case, then why did IBM bother registering the 32
> patents that it did register in NZ?
>

Who knows. Maybe those particular inventions originated in NZ.

> The situation is of course different if products are exported from NZ to a
> country where a patent in that country would be infringed.

So as long as you only sell products based on stolen IP within NZ's borders,
that's cool. Is that what you're saying?
peterwn
2007-07-29 02:07:49 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "peterwn" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:46abdd18$***@clear.net.nz...
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>> IBM owns 40,000 patents, of which exxactly 32 are registered in NZ
>>> (accordining to the IPONZ database). Are you seriously suggesting that
>>> you are free to steal the products and processes identified in the
>>> remaining 39,968 patents?
>> I am seriously suggesting that anyone within NZ is free to use the
>> products and processes in these 39,968 overseas patents, since such use is
>> not in breach of NZ law. IBM may not like it, but just has to accept it.
>>
>
> LOL. Got any examples of where this has had actually happenend? Other than
> in your imagination, I mean.

No. The onus is on *you* to give an example of a case where a foreign
patent has been successfully enforced in NZ for an 'alleged' NZ breach.
This may be either a judgment or where the parties settled out of
court. Alternatively you can point to a section in NZ legislation which
makes an infringement of a foreign patent in NZ unlawful. I am unaware
of any such instance (and I have followed NZ current and business
affairs for many years), and I think you would have great difficulty in
finding any such instance.

If foreign patents were enforceable in WTO or other nations, then
companies would register patents in one nation only and then enforce it
in all other nations. They would moreover choose to register them in
the nation that had the most favourable patent regime. This just has
not happened.

>> The situation is of course different if products are exported from NZ to a
>> country where a patent in that country would be infringed.
>
> So as long as you only sell products based on stolen IP within NZ's borders,
> that's cool. Is that what you're saying?

OK you may have a viewpoint on the morality of making and selling a
product within NZ which infringes some overseas patent. To the extent
that such a moral view may be shared by NZ society in general is another
matter. This does not however mean however that the person concerned
had breached NZ law, which is the issue of concern here.

There is another issue at play too - patent schemes, right from
inception, have been revenue earners for monarchs and governments.
Therefore if a firm wants to enforce an overseas patent in NZ, it must
register the patent in NZ and pay the prescribed fee, so the Government
coffers benefit in return for bestowing patent protection.
impossible
2007-07-29 03:12:40 UTC
Permalink
"peterwn" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:46abf66f$***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>> "peterwn" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>> news:46abdd18$***@clear.net.nz...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> IBM owns 40,000 patents, of which exxactly 32 are registered in NZ
>>>> (accordining to the IPONZ database). Are you seriously suggesting that
>>>> you are free to steal the products and processes identified in the
>>>> remaining 39,968 patents?
>>> I am seriously suggesting that anyone within NZ is free to use the
>>> products and processes in these 39,968 overseas patents, since such use
>>> is not in breach of NZ law. IBM may not like it, but just has to accept
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>> LOL. Got any examples of where this has had actually happenend? Other
>> than in your imagination, I mean.
>
> No. The onus is on *you* to give an example of a case where a foreign
> patent has been successfully enforced in NZ for an 'alleged' NZ breach.
> This may be either a judgment or where the parties settled out of court.

NZ courts have no say over the matter of patents that originate in foreign
countries -- these are protected by the WTO.

> Alternatively you can point to a section in NZ legislation which makes an
> infringement of a foreign patent in NZ unlawful. I am unaware of any such
> instance (and I have followed NZ current and business affairs for many
> years), and I think you would have great difficulty in finding any such
> instance.
>

The NZ Parliament has no say over the matter of patents that originate in
foreign countries -- these are protected by the WTO.


> If foreign patents were enforceable in WTO or other nations, then
> companies would register patents in one nation only and then enforce it in
> all other nations. They would moreover choose to register them in the
> nation that had the most favourable patent regime. This just has not
> happened.
>

Nonsense. The whole idea of the WTO free-trade regime is to eliminate all
this costly business of having to register patents separately in every
territory. All memebers of the WTO have "most favoured nation" status with
each other, and all have agrreed to mutually respect each other's IP. If you
don't understand that, then you don't understand what the WTO is all about.

>>> The situation is of course different if products are exported from NZ to
>>> a country where a patent in that country would be infringed.
>>
>> So as long as you only sell products based on stolen IP within NZ's
>> borders, that's cool. Is that what you're saying?
>
> OK you may have a viewpoint on the morality of making and selling a
> product within NZ which infringes some overseas patent. To the extent that
> such a moral view may be shared by NZ society in general is another
> matter. This does not however mean however that the person concerned had
> breached NZ law, which is the issue of concern here.
>

There is **no New Zealand law** covering any of this, and there doesn't need
to be. That's what you don't seem to get. If IBM claims patent infringement
in NZ, and the WTO upholds that claim, it doesn't matter in the least what
any New Zealander thinks, because we have no say in the matter. The NZ
government would be required to enforce IBM's claims, or else face WTOP
sanctions.

> There is another issue at play too - patent schemes, right from inception,
> have been revenue earners for monarchs and governments. Therefore if a
> firm wants to enforce an overseas patent in NZ, it must register the
> patent in NZ and pay the prescribed fee, so the Government coffers benefit
> in return for bestowing patent protection.

You're wrong. What can I say?
peterwn
2007-07-29 04:34:15 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:

<snip>

To sum up:

1. There is no NZ law requiring Kiwis (or anyone else) within NZ to
respect foreign patents. Moreover there is no mutual legal recognition
of foreign patents among governments (perhaps odd cases excepted).

2. Given this, the WTO is in practice unable to require its members to
pass legislation to give legal effect to foreign patents. International
patents may be a lofty ideal for WTO, but there is a very long path to
go down to achieve such an ideal. I do not see, for example, USA having
any great willingness to uphold foreign patents any time soon.

3. IMO there is no moral obligation on anyone to respect foreign
patents, this being particularly so given the practical implementation
of patent schemes around the world.

4. To make a more general comment, there is a significant two faced
attitudes to patents by many (including large companies such as Fortune
500 companies). On one hand, they want very strong protection for
patents issued, but on the other hand they will stoop to fraud (eg
willfully not disclosing prior art), or something very near fraud, or
just sharp practice in order to obtain patents. On this basis it is
difficult to argue that there is a strong moral justification for Kiwis
to respect foreign patents especially when a significant number will not
stand up to close scrutiny.

5. Since for all intents and purposes, ordinary Kiwis cannot be
sanctioned by the Government or the WTO for alleged breach of foreign
patents, they can in practice ignore foreign patents (unless they are in
the export business) and get on with life.
impossible
2007-07-29 04:43:41 UTC
Permalink
"peterwn" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:46ac18bf$***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> To sum up:
>

<snip>
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2007-07-29 11:32:15 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible wrote:

> "peterwn" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:46abc962$***@clear.net.nz...
>
>> Nowhere does the WTO regime require that one member state enforce patents
>> obtained in another member state. If this were the case, there would be
>> no need for companies to register patents in any more than one country,
>> and there would be no need for the heavy lobbying that has been taking
>> place in Europe to allow software to be patented.
>
> IBM owns 40,000 patents, of which exxactly 32 are registered in NZ
> (accordining to the IPONZ database). Are you seriously suggesting that you
> are free to steal the products and processes identified in the remaining
> 39,968 patents?

Ah... love that use of the word "steal". As though to suggest that anybody
who disagrees with you is somehow condoning criminal activity. Only a true
blowhard could have come up with something like that. Keep it up!
impossible
2007-07-29 12:18:40 UTC
Permalink
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:f8htnj$ss1$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
> wrote:
>
>> "peterwn" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>> news:46abc962$***@clear.net.nz...
>>
>>> Nowhere does the WTO regime require that one member state enforce
>>> patents
>>> obtained in another member state. If this were the case, there would be
>>> no need for companies to register patents in any more than one country,
>>> and there would be no need for the heavy lobbying that has been taking
>>> place in Europe to allow software to be patented.
>>
>> IBM owns 40,000 patents, of which exxactly 32 are registered in NZ
>> (accordining to the IPONZ database). Are you seriously suggesting that
>> you
>> are free to steal the products and processes identified in the remaining
>> 39,968 patents?
>
> Ah... love that use of the word "steal". As though to suggest that anybody
> who disagrees with you is somehow condoning criminal activity.

Not at all. Just answer the question. Either you understand what IP is or
you don't.
sam
2007-07-29 21:22:03 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:f8htnj$ss1$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "peterwn" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:46abc962$***@clear.net.nz...
>>>
>>>> Nowhere does the WTO regime require that one member state enforce
>>>> patents
>>>> obtained in another member state. If this were the case, there would be
>>>> no need for companies to register patents in any more than one country,
>>>> and there would be no need for the heavy lobbying that has been taking
>>>> place in Europe to allow software to be patented.
>>> IBM owns 40,000 patents, of which exxactly 32 are registered in NZ
>>> (accordining to the IPONZ database). Are you seriously suggesting that
>>> you
>>> are free to steal the products and processes identified in the remaining
>>> 39,968 patents?
>> Ah... love that use of the word "steal". As though to suggest that anybody
>> who disagrees with you is somehow condoning criminal activity.
>
> Not at all. Just answer the question. Either you understand what IP is or
> you don't.
>
>
Its a metaphor.
The term "intellectual property" denotes the specific legal rights which
authors, inventors and other IP holders may hold and exercise, and not
the intellectual work itself.
A legal right cannot be stolen.
impossible
2007-07-29 21:40:46 UTC
Permalink
"sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46ad04ff$***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:f8htnj$ss1$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "peterwn" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>>> news:46abc962$***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>
>>>>> Nowhere does the WTO regime require that one member state enforce
>>>>> patents
>>>>> obtained in another member state. If this were the case, there would
>>>>> be
>>>>> no need for companies to register patents in any more than one
>>>>> country,
>>>>> and there would be no need for the heavy lobbying that has been taking
>>>>> place in Europe to allow software to be patented.
>>>> IBM owns 40,000 patents, of which exxactly 32 are registered in NZ
>>>> (accordining to the IPONZ database). Are you seriously suggesting that
>>>> you
>>>> are free to steal the products and processes identified in the
>>>> remaining
>>>> 39,968 patents?
>>> Ah... love that use of the word "steal". As though to suggest that
>>> anybody
>>> who disagrees with you is somehow condoning criminal activity.
>>
>> Not at all. Just answer the question. Either you understand what IP is or
>> you don't.
> Its a metaphor.
> The term "intellectual property" denotes the specific legal rights which
> authors, inventors and other IP holders may hold and exercise, and not the
> intellectual work itself.

Nonsense. Intellectual property is property, and either the legal system
protects that property or it doesn't. Copyrights and patents are the legal
instruments that give owners of intellectual property certain exclusive
claims on its use for a specified period of time.

> A legal right cannot be stolen.

No. But if the state does not enforce the legal rights associated with
property ownership, then property most certainly can be stolen.
sam
2007-07-29 22:58:42 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46ad04ff$***@clear.net.nz...
>> impossible wrote:
>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>>> news:f8htnj$ss1$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "peterwn" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>>>> news:46abc962$***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nowhere does the WTO regime require that one member state enforce
>>>>>> patents
>>>>>> obtained in another member state. If this were the case, there would
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> no need for companies to register patents in any more than one
>>>>>> country,
>>>>>> and there would be no need for the heavy lobbying that has been taking
>>>>>> place in Europe to allow software to be patented.
>>>>> IBM owns 40,000 patents, of which exxactly 32 are registered in NZ
>>>>> (accordining to the IPONZ database). Are you seriously suggesting that
>>>>> you
>>>>> are free to steal the products and processes identified in the
>>>>> remaining
>>>>> 39,968 patents?
>>>> Ah... love that use of the word "steal". As though to suggest that
>>>> anybody
>>>> who disagrees with you is somehow condoning criminal activity.
>>> Not at all. Just answer the question. Either you understand what IP is or
>>> you don't.
>> Its a metaphor.
>> The term "intellectual property" denotes the specific legal rights which
>> authors, inventors and other IP holders may hold and exercise, and not the
>> intellectual work itself.
>
> Nonsense. Intellectual property is property, and either the legal system
> protects that property or it doesn't. Copyrights and patents are the legal
> instruments that give owners of intellectual property certain exclusive
> claims on its use for a specified period of time.

They are "legal rights" in other words

>
>> A legal right cannot be stolen.
>
> No. But if the state does not enforce the legal rights associated with
> property ownership, then property most certainly can be stolen.
>
>
The metaphor is confusing you.
A right can not be stolen, if you infinge a right, it is not now in your
possession and not in the possession of the property owner.
Rights holders are entitled to initiate civil actions and injunctions
against copyright infringements or patent infringements.
But the police won't act on a complaint of theft if a file is copied
because the criteria defining theft have not been met.
We have different words in our language for copyright infringement and
theft, because they are actually different and have to be dealt with in
law in different ways.
They may involve dishonesty, be unethical, or be morally equivalent, but
you can't just choose an appropriate grunting noise to mean both
interchangeably.
impossible
2007-07-29 23:47:56 UTC
Permalink
"sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46ad1ba3$***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>> news:46ad04ff$***@clear.net.nz...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>> message news:f8htnj$ss1$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "peterwn" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:46abc962$***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nowhere does the WTO regime require that one member state enforce
>>>>>>> patents
>>>>>>> obtained in another member state. If this were the case, there
>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> no need for companies to register patents in any more than one
>>>>>>> country,
>>>>>>> and there would be no need for the heavy lobbying that has been
>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>> place in Europe to allow software to be patented.
>>>>>> IBM owns 40,000 patents, of which exxactly 32 are registered in NZ
>>>>>> (accordining to the IPONZ database). Are you seriously suggesting
>>>>>> that you
>>>>>> are free to steal the products and processes identified in the
>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>> 39,968 patents?
>>>>> Ah... love that use of the word "steal". As though to suggest that
>>>>> anybody
>>>>> who disagrees with you is somehow condoning criminal activity.
>>>> Not at all. Just answer the question. Either you understand what IP is
>>>> or you don't.
>>> Its a metaphor.
>>> The term "intellectual property" denotes the specific legal rights which
>>> authors, inventors and other IP holders may hold and exercise, and not
>>> the intellectual work itself.
>>
>> Nonsense. Intellectual property is property, and either the legal system
>> protects that property or it doesn't. Copyrights and patents are the
>> legal instruments that give owners of intellectual property certain
>> exclusive claims on its use for a specified period of time.
>
> They are "legal rights" in other words
>

No, pay attention. Copyrights and patents are like deeds of land. They
certify ownership of intellectual property. What the WTO has done is to
establish a trade regime in which member nations agree not to contest each
other's intellectual property claims: patents issued by any nation will be
respected by all nations, and the exclusive rights of ownership embedded in
those patents will not be infringed. No theft of IP, in other words.

>>
>>> A legal right cannot be stolen.
>>
>> No. But if the state does not enforce the legal rights associated with
>> property ownership, then property most certainly can be stolen.
>>
>>
> The metaphor is confusing you.
> A right can not be stolen, if you infinge a right, it is not now in your
> possession and not in the possession of the property owner.

You're hopelessly confused. Legal rights are no one's "possesion". You can't
sell rights or pass them on to your heirs, because they don't belong to
you -- they are institutions of the state. Property -- things you do
possess -- are different. The state grants you certain legal rights of
ownership with respect to your possesions, be they real or intellectual, the
most elementary right being the right to not have your property used without
your authorization.

> Rights holders are entitled to initiate civil actions and injunctions
> against copyright infringements or patent infringements.
> But the police won't act on a complaint of theft if a file is copied
> because the criteria defining theft have not been met.

That all depends on the terms of use that govern the copying of a specific
file. If the file happens to be proprietary, then you need proper
authorization to copy it.

> We have different words in our language for copyright infringement and
> theft, because they are actually different and have to be dealt with in
> law in different ways.
> They may involve dishonesty, be unethical, or be morally equivalent, but
> you can't just choose an appropriate grunting noise to mean both
> interchangeably.

Grunt whatever euphemsims make you feel better. But if you download a
copyrighted song or video without authorization, you have stolen
intellectual property. If you use a patented process without the agreement
of the patent-holder, you have stolen intellectual property.
sam
2007-07-30 00:30:20 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
.
>
> Grunt whatever euphemsims make you feel better. But if you download a
> copyrighted song or video without authorization, you have stolen
> intellectual property. If you use a patented process without the agreement
> of the patent-holder, you have stolen intellectual property.
>
>

Nuh uh
To the RIAA and MPAA, theft and piracy are their euphemisms, a
rhetorical device to imply moral equivalency to burglary and the taking
of ships in international waters.
You may have infringed the copyright holders exclusive right to
distribute their copyrighted work. But they still have their copyright
and their original work, you have not dprived them of possession. That
gives them right to sue you, but not to make a complaint of theft to the
police.
Possession of the copyright material is not a crime.
You probably have material on your PC that infringes patents, it is
impossible not to, but you are not in possession of stolen property.
sam
2007-07-30 00:37:42 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46ad1ba3$***@clear.net.nz...
>> impossible wrote:
>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>> news:46ad04ff$***@clear.net.nz...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>>>> message news:f8htnj$ss1$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "peterwn" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:46abc962$***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nowhere does the WTO regime require that one member state enforce
>>>>>>>> patents
>>>>>>>> obtained in another member state. If this were the case, there
>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>> no need for companies to register patents in any more than one
>>>>>>>> country,
>>>>>>>> and there would be no need for the heavy lobbying that has been
>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>> place in Europe to allow software to be patented.
>>>>>>> IBM owns 40,000 patents, of which exxactly 32 are registered in NZ
>>>>>>> (accordining to the IPONZ database). Are you seriously suggesting
>>>>>>> that you
>>>>>>> are free to steal the products and processes identified in the
>>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>>> 39,968 patents?
>>>>>> Ah... love that use of the word "steal". As though to suggest that
>>>>>> anybody
>>>>>> who disagrees with you is somehow condoning criminal activity.
>>>>> Not at all. Just answer the question. Either you understand what IP is
>>>>> or you don't.
>>>> Its a metaphor.
>>>> The term "intellectual property" denotes the specific legal rights which
>>>> authors, inventors and other IP holders may hold and exercise, and not
>>>> the intellectual work itself.
>>> Nonsense. Intellectual property is property, and either the legal system
>>> protects that property or it doesn't. Copyrights and patents are the
>>> legal instruments that give owners of intellectual property certain
>>> exclusive claims on its use for a specified period of time.
>> They are "legal rights" in other words
>>
>
> No, pay attention. Copyrights and patents are like deeds of land. They
> certify ownership of intellectual property. What the WTO has done is to
> establish a trade regime in which member nations agree not to contest each
> other's intellectual property claims: patents issued by any nation will be
> respected by all nations, and the exclusive rights of ownership embedded in
> those patents will not be infringed. No theft of IP, in other words.
>
>>>> A legal right cannot be stolen.
>>> No. But if the state does not enforce the legal rights associated with
>>> property ownership, then property most certainly can be stolen.
>>>
>>>
>> The metaphor is confusing you.
>> A right can not be stolen, if you infinge a right, it is not now in your
>> possession and not in the possession of the property owner.
>
> You're hopelessly confused. Legal rights are no one's "possesion". You can't
> sell rights or pass them on to your heirs, because they don't belong to
> you -- they are institutions of the state. Property -- things you do
> possess -- are different. The state grants you certain legal rights of
> ownership with respect to your possesions, be they real or intellectual, the
> most elementary right being the right to not have your property used without
> your authorization.
>


Don't be silly
Patents are rights, they get bought sold and exchanged all the time,
thats how IBM ended up with so many.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=patent
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2007-07-30 05:44:43 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible wrote:

> Copyrights and patents are like deeds of land. They
> certify ownership of intellectual property.

Copyrights, patent rights and trademark rights are not property rights.
Infringing those rights is not the same as infringing property rights.

(See for example Dowling vs United States, 1985.)

> What the WTO has done is to
> establish a trade regime in which member nations agree not to contest each
> other's intellectual property claims: patents issued by any nation will be
> respected by all nations, and the exclusive rights of ownership embedded
> in those patents will not be infringed. No theft of IP, in other words.

Where in any of the WTO-related agreements does it say that? No-one has come
up with quotes from TRIPS or any other such treaties that could be
interpreted in such a way. Would you like to back up your claim?
Don Hills
2007-07-30 09:02:14 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@comcast.com>,
"impossible" <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>No, pay attention. Copyrights and patents are like deeds of land. They
>certify ownership of intellectual property. What the WTO has done is to
>establish a trade regime in which member nations agree not to contest each
>other's intellectual property claims: patents issued by any nation will be
>respected by all nations, and the exclusive rights of ownership embedded in
>those patents will not be infringed. No theft of IP, in other words.

Copyrights certify no such thing. In order to establish your copyright to a
work, you have to publish it - specifically by fixing it in a tangible form.
Once it is published, you no longer own it. You can't prevent anyone else
from enjoying / using that work. In return, you receive the right to control
the copying of that work for a limited period. If you're smart, you'll
arrange to be paid for each copy that you allow to be made. But even if you
allow no copies, you still don't own the work. One original requirement for
copyrighting a work was to deposit copies of it with public libraries, so
that it would be available to the public in perpetuity regardless of the
copyright holder's actions.

Patents are similar. Once you patent an idea, you no longer own it. You
cannot stop anyone reading the patent and constructing the device described.
The patent merely allows you to prevent anyone from making money using the
idea without your permission.

>Grunt whatever euphemsims make you feel better. But if you download a
>copyrighted song or video without authorization, you have stolen
>intellectual property. If you use a patented process without the agreement
>of the patent-holder, you have stolen intellectual property.

"Intellectual property" does not exist as property. It's a convenient name
for the rights assigned to a published work, popular amongst rights holders
because it implies they have a greater control over the work than they
actually do.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
-- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286
impossible
2007-07-30 11:38:27 UTC
Permalink
"Don Hills" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@attglobal.net...
> In article <***@comcast.com>,
> "impossible" <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>No, pay attention. Copyrights and patents are like deeds of land. They
>>certify ownership of intellectual property. What the WTO has done is to
>>establish a trade regime in which member nations agree not to contest each
>>other's intellectual property claims: patents issued by any nation will be
>>respected by all nations, and the exclusive rights of ownership embedded
>>in
>>those patents will not be infringed. No theft of IP, in other words.
>
> Copyrights certify no such thing. In order to establish your copyright to
> a
> work, you have to publish it - specifically by fixing it in a tangible
> form.
> Once it is published, you no longer own it. You can't prevent anyone else
> from enjoying / using that work. In return, you receive the right to
> control
> the copying of that work for a limited period. If you're smart, you'll
> arrange to be paid for each copy that you allow to be made. But even if
> you
> allow no copies, you still don't own the work. One original requirement
> for
> copyrighting a work was to deposit copies of it with public libraries, so
> that it would be available to the public in perpetuity regardless of the
> copyright holder's actions.
>

Since creative works that are subject to copyight are usually meant to be
used/enjoyed by others, the only substantive issue is who has control over
the commercial value of those works. Copyright grants the author of a
creative work the exclusive legal right of to control the copying of that
work. No one else may distribute a copyrighted work -- for a free or for a
price -- without the author's express permission. The work then is **not**
public property , even if deposited in a public library or posted somewhere
on the internet, but is instead subject to the much more restrictive "fair
use" provisions of copyright law. Only when the copyright term expires, or
when the work is deliberately released by the author to the public domain,
does this not hold.

> Patents are similar. Once you patent an idea, you no longer own it. You
> cannot stop anyone reading the patent and constructing the device
> described.
> The patent merely allows you to prevent anyone from making money using the
> idea without your permission.
>

Again, commercial use of intellectual property is the key. Once an idea is
patented, the patent-holder has the exclusive legal right of to put that
idea to commercial use for the term of the patent. The idea can be studied
in school, tinkered with in research labs, or freely debated on the
internet, but it cannot be commercialized without the patent-holder's
permission.

>>Grunt whatever euphemsims make you feel better. But if you download a
>>copyrighted song or video without authorization, you have stolen
>>intellectual property. If you use a patented process without the agreement
>>of the patent-holder, you have stolen intellectual property.
>
> "Intellectual property" does not exist as property. It's a convenient name
> for the rights assigned to a published work, popular amongst rights
> holders
> because it implies they have a greater control over the work than they
> actually do.
>

IP implies all the legal rights of copyright/patent -- no more and no less.
Violating the terms of copyright/patent means violating the commercial
exclusivity provisions of those instruments, and by any definition that is
theft.
sam
2007-07-30 13:27:06 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "Don Hills" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@attglobal.net...
>> In article <***@comcast.com>,
>> "impossible" <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> No, pay attention. Copyrights and patents are like deeds of land. They
>>> certify ownership of intellectual property. What the WTO has done is to
>>> establish a trade regime in which member nations agree not to contest each
>>> other's intellectual property claims: patents issued by any nation will be
>>> respected by all nations, and the exclusive rights of ownership embedded
>>> in
>>> those patents will not be infringed. No theft of IP, in other words.
>> Copyrights certify no such thing. In order to establish your copyright to
>> a
>> work, you have to publish it - specifically by fixing it in a tangible
>> form.
>> Once it is published, you no longer own it. You can't prevent anyone else
>> from enjoying / using that work. In return, you receive the right to
>> control
>> the copying of that work for a limited period. If you're smart, you'll
>> arrange to be paid for each copy that you allow to be made. But even if
>> you
>> allow no copies, you still don't own the work. One original requirement
>> for
>> copyrighting a work was to deposit copies of it with public libraries, so
>> that it would be available to the public in perpetuity regardless of the
>> copyright holder's actions.
>>
>
> Since creative works that are subject to copyight are usually meant to be
> used/enjoyed by others, the only substantive issue is who has control over
> the commercial value of those works. Copyright grants the author of a
> creative work the exclusive legal right of to control the copying of that
> work. No one else may distribute a copyrighted work -- for a free or for a
> price -- without the author's express permission. The work then is **not**
> public property , even if deposited in a public library or posted somewhere
> on the internet, but is instead subject to the much more restrictive "fair
> use" provisions of copyright law. Only when the copyright term expires, or
> when the work is deliberately released by the author to the public domain,
> does this not hold.
>
>> Patents are similar. Once you patent an idea, you no longer own it. You
>> cannot stop anyone reading the patent and constructing the device
>> described.
>> The patent merely allows you to prevent anyone from making money using the
>> idea without your permission.
>>
>
> Again, commercial use of intellectual property is the key. Once an idea is
> patented, the patent-holder has the exclusive legal right of to put that
> idea to commercial use for the term of the patent. The idea can be studied
> in school, tinkered with in research labs, or freely debated on the
> internet, but it cannot be commercialized without the patent-holder's
> permission.
>
>>> Grunt whatever euphemsims make you feel better. But if you download a
>>> copyrighted song or video without authorization, you have stolen
>>> intellectual property. If you use a patented process without the agreement
>>> of the patent-holder, you have stolen intellectual property.
>> "Intellectual property" does not exist as property. It's a convenient name
>> for the rights assigned to a published work, popular amongst rights
>> holders
>> because it implies they have a greater control over the work than they
>> actually do.
>>
>
> IP implies all the legal rights of copyright/patent -- no more and no less.
> Violating the terms of copyright/patent means violating the commercial
> exclusivity provisions of those instruments, and by any definition that is
> theft.
>
>
Under NZ law, a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it.

Unauthorized copying does not fit this definition, you would have to
deprive the victim of the original.
impossible
2007-07-30 15:16:38 UTC
Permalink
"sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>> "Don Hills" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@attglobal.net...
>>> In article <***@comcast.com>,
>>> "impossible" <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> No, pay attention. Copyrights and patents are like deeds of land. They
>>>> certify ownership of intellectual property. What the WTO has done is to
>>>> establish a trade regime in which member nations agree not to contest
>>>> each
>>>> other's intellectual property claims: patents issued by any nation will
>>>> be
>>>> respected by all nations, and the exclusive rights of ownership
>>>> embedded in
>>>> those patents will not be infringed. No theft of IP, in other words.
>>> Copyrights certify no such thing. In order to establish your copyright
>>> to a
>>> work, you have to publish it - specifically by fixing it in a tangible
>>> form.
>>> Once it is published, you no longer own it. You can't prevent anyone
>>> else
>>> from enjoying / using that work. In return, you receive the right to
>>> control
>>> the copying of that work for a limited period. If you're smart, you'll
>>> arrange to be paid for each copy that you allow to be made. But even if
>>> you
>>> allow no copies, you still don't own the work. One original requirement
>>> for
>>> copyrighting a work was to deposit copies of it with public libraries,
>>> so
>>> that it would be available to the public in perpetuity regardless of the
>>> copyright holder's actions.
>>>
>>
>> Since creative works that are subject to copyight are usually meant to be
>> used/enjoyed by others, the only substantive issue is who has control
>> over the commercial value of those works. Copyright grants the author of
>> a creative work the exclusive legal right of to control the copying of
>> that work. No one else may distribute a copyrighted work -- for a free or
>> for a price -- without the author's express permission. The work then is
>> **not** public property , even if deposited in a public library or posted
>> somewhere on the internet, but is instead subject to the much more
>> restrictive "fair use" provisions of copyright law. Only when the
>> copyright term expires, or when the work is deliberately released by the
>> author to the public domain, does this not hold.
>>
>>> Patents are similar. Once you patent an idea, you no longer own it. You
>>> cannot stop anyone reading the patent and constructing the device
>>> described.
>>> The patent merely allows you to prevent anyone from making money using
>>> the
>>> idea without your permission.
>>>
>>
>> Again, commercial use of intellectual property is the key. Once an idea
>> is patented, the patent-holder has the exclusive legal right of to put
>> that idea to commercial use for the term of the patent. The idea can be
>> studied in school, tinkered with in research labs, or freely debated on
>> the internet, but it cannot be commercialized without the patent-holder's
>> permission.
>>
>>>> Grunt whatever euphemsims make you feel better. But if you download a
>>>> copyrighted song or video without authorization, you have stolen
>>>> intellectual property. If you use a patented process without the
>>>> agreement
>>>> of the patent-holder, you have stolen intellectual property.
>>> "Intellectual property" does not exist as property. It's a convenient
>>> name
>>> for the rights assigned to a published work, popular amongst rights
>>> holders
>>> because it implies they have a greater control over the work than they
>>> actually do.
>>>
>>
>> IP implies all the legal rights of copyright/patent -- no more and no
>> less. Violating the terms of copyright/patent means violating the
>> commercial exclusivity provisions of those instruments, and by any
>> definition that is theft.
> Under NZ law, a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates
> property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving
> the other of it.
>

So what is commonly referred to as "grand theft auto" is not really theft so
long as you eventually bring the car back? Cool!

> Unauthorized copying does not fit this definition, you would have to
> deprive the victim of the original.

Fine, let's call this "infringement of copy" -- a crime under NZ law that
is punishable by a fine up to $150,000 or imprisonment up to 5 years.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=318435493&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1994-143&softpage=DOC
sam
2007-07-30 16:15:21 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:

>
> Fine, let's call this "infringement of copy" -- a crime under NZ law that
> is punishable by a fine up to $150,000 or imprisonment up to 5 years.
>
> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=318435493&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1994-143&softpage=DOC
>
>
Not exactly, those criminal penalties are for unauthorized hire or sale
or public performance of a copyrighted work.
There is no limit to the civil damages that could be awarded however.
impossible
2007-07-30 16:34:42 UTC
Permalink
"sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46ae0e98$***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> Fine, let's call this "infringement of copy" -- a crime under NZ law
>> that is punishable by a fine up to $150,000 or imprisonment up to 5
>> years.
>>
>> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=318435493&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1994-143&softpage=DOC
>>
> Not exactly, those criminal penalties are for unauthorized hire or sale or
> public performance of a copyrighted work.
> There is no limit to the civil damages that could be awarded however.
>

No. Infringement of copyright involves any number of acts detailed in the
statute, including the act of unauthorized copying or distribution to the
public (See Part 2, "Infringement of copright", Sections 29-39). Criminal
penalties apply to the sale or hiring of copyrighted materilas, importation
into NZ, possession for purposes of unauthorized distribution, etc. Every
person who is found to have violated copyright is liable for fines up to
$150,000 or a term of imprisionment up to 5 years (See Part 2, "Infringement
of copright", Sections 131-133).
sam
2007-07-31 07:26:40 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46ae0e98$***@clear.net.nz...
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>> Fine, let's call this "infringement of copy" -- a crime under NZ law
>>> that is punishable by a fine up to $150,000 or imprisonment up to 5
>>> years.
>>>
>>> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=318435493&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1994-143&softpage=DOC
>>>
>> Not exactly, those criminal penalties are for unauthorized hire or sale or
>> public performance of a copyrighted work.
>> There is no limit to the civil damages that could be awarded however.
>>
>
> No. Infringement of copyright involves any number of acts detailed in the
> statute, including the act of unauthorized copying or distribution to the
> public (See Part 2, "Infringement of copright", Sections 29-39). Criminal
> penalties apply to the sale or hiring of copyrighted materilas, importation
> into NZ, possession for purposes of unauthorized distribution, etc. Every
> person who is found to have violated copyright is liable for fines up to
> $150,000 or a term of imprisionment up to 5 years (See Part 2, "Infringement
> of copright", Sections 131-133).
>
>

Back in the real world, in the high profile copyright case involving the
unauthorized distribution of Sione's Wedding, the culprit was sentenced
to 300hrs community service.
impossible
2007-07-31 15:20:44 UTC
Permalink
"sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46aee430$***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>> news:46ae0e98$***@clear.net.nz...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fine, let's call this "infringement of copy" -- a crime under NZ law
>>>> that is punishable by a fine up to $150,000 or imprisonment up to 5
>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=318435493&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1994-143&softpage=DOC
>>>>
>>> Not exactly, those criminal penalties are for unauthorized hire or sale
>>> or public performance of a copyrighted work.
>>> There is no limit to the civil damages that could be awarded however.
>>>
>>
>> No. Infringement of copyright involves any number of acts detailed in the
>> statute, including the act of unauthorized copying or distribution to the
>> public (See Part 2, "Infringement of copright", Sections 29-39). Criminal
>> penalties apply to the sale or hiring of copyrighted materilas,
>> importation into NZ, possession for purposes of unauthorized
>> distribution, etc. Every person who is found to have violated copyright
>> is liable for fines up to $150,000 or a term of imprisionment up to 5
>> years (See Part 2, "Infringement of copright", Sections 131-133).
>
> Back in the real world, in the high profile copyright case involving the
> unauthorized distribution of Sione's Wedding, the culprit was sentenced to
> 300hrs community service.

A slap on the wrist is appropiate in some cases. Just so long as there's no
confusion here that infringement of copyright is a crime and that more
severe punishments are likely as the scope and severity of the crime
increases.
sam
2007-07-31 21:21:58 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46aee430$***@clear.net.nz...
>> impossible wrote:
>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>> news:46ae0e98$***@clear.net.nz...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fine, let's call this "infringement of copy" -- a crime under NZ law
>>>>> that is punishable by a fine up to $150,000 or imprisonment up to 5
>>>>> years.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=318435493&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1994-143&softpage=DOC
>>>>>
>>>> Not exactly, those criminal penalties are for unauthorized hire or sale
>>>> or public performance of a copyrighted work.
>>>> There is no limit to the civil damages that could be awarded however.
>>>>
>>> No. Infringement of copyright involves any number of acts detailed in the
>>> statute, including the act of unauthorized copying or distribution to the
>>> public (See Part 2, "Infringement of copright", Sections 29-39). Criminal
>>> penalties apply to the sale or hiring of copyrighted materilas,
>>> importation into NZ, possession for purposes of unauthorized
>>> distribution, etc. Every person who is found to have violated copyright
>>> is liable for fines up to $150,000 or a term of imprisionment up to 5
>>> years (See Part 2, "Infringement of copright", Sections 131-133).
>> Back in the real world, in the high profile copyright case involving the
>> unauthorized distribution of Sione's Wedding, the culprit was sentenced to
>> 300hrs community service.
>
> A slap on the wrist is appropiate in some cases. Just so long as there's no
> confusion here that infringement of copyright is a crime and that more
> severe punishments are likely as the scope and severity of the crime
> increases.
>
>
>
The criminal sanctions don't apply in the case of ripping your cds to
for your ipod however. No wrists have ever been slapped, not even once,
despite the sales of over 100 million ipods. It would be pointless.
Over 90% of cases for infringement of copyright are handled under civil
law by injunction or settlement.
The criminal cases are usually about counterfeit goods and large scale
bootlegging of cds and dvds for sale in markets, and will only ever
address the tip of the iceberg.
impossible
2007-07-31 22:09:11 UTC
Permalink
"sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46afa7f4$***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>> news:46aee430$***@clear.net.nz...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>> news:46ae0e98$***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fine, let's call this "infringement of copy" -- a crime under NZ law
>>>>>> that is punishable by a fine up to $150,000 or imprisonment up to 5
>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=318435493&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1994-143&softpage=DOC
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not exactly, those criminal penalties are for unauthorized hire or
>>>>> sale or public performance of a copyrighted work.
>>>>> There is no limit to the civil damages that could be awarded however.
>>>>>
>>>> No. Infringement of copyright involves any number of acts detailed in
>>>> the statute, including the act of unauthorized copying or distribution
>>>> to the public (See Part 2, "Infringement of copright", Sections 29-39).
>>>> Criminal penalties apply to the sale or hiring of copyrighted
>>>> materilas, importation into NZ, possession for purposes of unauthorized
>>>> distribution, etc. Every person who is found to have violated copyright
>>>> is liable for fines up to $150,000 or a term of imprisionment up to 5
>>>> years (See Part 2, "Infringement of copright", Sections 131-133).
>>> Back in the real world, in the high profile copyright case involving the
>>> unauthorized distribution of Sione's Wedding, the culprit was sentenced
>>> to 300hrs community service.
>>
>> A slap on the wrist is appropiate in some cases. Just so long as there's
>> no confusion here that infringement of copyright is a crime and that more
>> severe punishments are likely as the scope and severity of the crime
>> increases.
>>
>>
>>
> The criminal sanctions don't apply in the case of ripping your cds to for
> your ipod however. No wrists have ever been slapped, not even once,
> despite the sales of over 100 million ipods. It would be pointless.

"Pointless" only in the sense that it's too costly to prosecute this kind of
thing. It's still a crime, and if someone wanted to make a big deal about it
(they way they often do now in dope cases) they could, because the law is
quite clear.

> Over 90% of cases for infringement of copyright are handled under civil
> law by injunction or settlement.

Again, only because it's more expedient to do that. So long as you can
afford a lawyer to settle out of court on these things, you will, because no
one wants a criminal record.

> The criminal cases are usually about counterfeit goods and large scale
> bootlegging of cds and dvds for sale in markets, and will only ever
> address the tip of the iceberg.

Exactly.
sam
2007-07-31 23:30:34 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46afa7f4$***@clear.net.nz...
>> impossible wrote:
>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>> news:46aee430$***@clear.net.nz...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>>> news:46ae0e98$***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fine, let's call this "infringement of copy" -- a crime under NZ law
>>>>>>> that is punishable by a fine up to $150,000 or imprisonment up to 5
>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=318435493&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1994-143&softpage=DOC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not exactly, those criminal penalties are for unauthorized hire or
>>>>>> sale or public performance of a copyrighted work.
>>>>>> There is no limit to the civil damages that could be awarded however.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No. Infringement of copyright involves any number of acts detailed in
>>>>> the statute, including the act of unauthorized copying or distribution
>>>>> to the public (See Part 2, "Infringement of copright", Sections 29-39).
>>>>> Criminal penalties apply to the sale or hiring of copyrighted
>>>>> materilas, importation into NZ, possession for purposes of unauthorized
>>>>> distribution, etc. Every person who is found to have violated copyright
>>>>> is liable for fines up to $150,000 or a term of imprisionment up to 5
>>>>> years (See Part 2, "Infringement of copright", Sections 131-133).
>>>> Back in the real world, in the high profile copyright case involving the
>>>> unauthorized distribution of Sione's Wedding, the culprit was sentenced
>>>> to 300hrs community service.
>>> A slap on the wrist is appropiate in some cases. Just so long as there's
>>> no confusion here that infringement of copyright is a crime and that more
>>> severe punishments are likely as the scope and severity of the crime
>>> increases.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The criminal sanctions don't apply in the case of ripping your cds to for
>> your ipod however. No wrists have ever been slapped, not even once,
>> despite the sales of over 100 million ipods. It would be pointless.
>
> "Pointless" only in the sense that it's too costly to prosecute this kind of
> thing. It's still a crime, and if someone wanted to make a big deal about it
> (they way they often do now in dope cases) they could, because the law is
> quite clear.

Pointless in the sense that any action has to be initiated by the
copyright holder, who has suffered no loss and stands to receive no
compensation. Copyright is civil law, not criminal law, although there
are criminal liabilities and penalties for some acts.
You don't become a criminal by making an infringing copy, it is what you
do with it that may or may not make you criminally liable.

Criminal liability is define in Section 131 and 198

>
>> Over 90% of cases for infringement of copyright are handled under civil
>> law by injunction or settlement.
>
> Again, only because it's more expedient to do that. So long as you can
> afford a lawyer to settle out of court on these things, you will, because no
> one wants a criminal record.

It is far more expensive to go to court, and settlements are made on a
rational fiscal basis, because the copyright holder and infringer are
picking up the massive tab for the lawyers, not the Crown.
When an infringement of copyright case is settled in court, no one gets
a criminal record. The director of public prosecutions has to initiate
criminal prosecution being satisfied that there is a case to answer
under section 131 or 198 for ther to be any possibility of a criminal
record.

>
>> The criminal cases are usually about counterfeit goods and large scale
>> bootlegging of cds and dvds for sale in markets, and will only ever
>> address the tip of the iceberg.
>
> Exactly.
>
>
impossible
2007-08-01 00:03:29 UTC
Permalink
"sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46afc619$***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>> news:46afa7f4$***@clear.net.nz...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>> news:46aee430$***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:46ae0e98$***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fine, let's call this "infringement of copy" -- a crime under NZ
>>>>>>>> law that is punishable by a fine up to $150,000 or imprisonment up
>>>>>>>> to 5 years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=318435493&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1994-143&softpage=DOC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not exactly, those criminal penalties are for unauthorized hire or
>>>>>>> sale or public performance of a copyrighted work.
>>>>>>> There is no limit to the civil damages that could be awarded
>>>>>>> however.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Infringement of copyright involves any number of acts detailed in
>>>>>> the statute, including the act of unauthorized copying or
>>>>>> distribution to the public (See Part 2, "Infringement of copright",
>>>>>> Sections 29-39). Criminal penalties apply to the sale or hiring of
>>>>>> copyrighted materilas, importation into NZ, possession for purposes
>>>>>> of unauthorized distribution, etc. Every person who is found to have
>>>>>> violated copyright is liable for fines up to $150,000 or a term of
>>>>>> imprisionment up to 5 years (See Part 2, "Infringement of copright",
>>>>>> Sections 131-133).
>>>>> Back in the real world, in the high profile copyright case involving
>>>>> the unauthorized distribution of Sione's Wedding, the culprit was
>>>>> sentenced to 300hrs community service.
>>>> A slap on the wrist is appropiate in some cases. Just so long as
>>>> there's no confusion here that infringement of copyright is a crime and
>>>> that more severe punishments are likely as the scope and severity of
>>>> the crime increases.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The criminal sanctions don't apply in the case of ripping your cds to
>>> for your ipod however. No wrists have ever been slapped, not even once,
>>> despite the sales of over 100 million ipods. It would be pointless.
>>
>> "Pointless" only in the sense that it's too costly to prosecute this kind
>> of thing. It's still a crime, and if someone wanted to make a big deal
>> about it (they way they often do now in dope cases) they could, because
>> the law is quite clear.
>
> Pointless in the sense that any action has to be initiated by the
> copyright holder, who has suffered no loss and stands to receive no
> compensation. Copyright is civil law, not criminal law, although there are
> criminal liabilities and penalties for some acts.

Let's be clear: copyright infringement in NZ is a criminal offense.

> You don't become a criminal by making an infringing copy, it is what you
> do with it that may or may not make you criminally liable.
>

Under certain condition, the simple act of copying a work may not constitute
copyright infringemement. But if copyright is deemed to have been infringed,
then this is a criminal offense.

> Criminal liability is define in Section 131 and 198
>

Yes, and criminal liability can be invoked for the sale, hire, exhibition,
or distribution of a copyrighted work. If you make an infringing copy, or if
you have such a copy in your possession, you are criminally liable.

>>
>>> Over 90% of cases for infringement of copyright are handled under civil
>>> law by injunction or settlement.
>>
>> Again, only because it's more expedient to do that. So long as you can
>> afford a lawyer to settle out of court on these things, you will, because
>> no one wants a criminal record.
>
> It is far more expensive to go to court, and settlements are made on a
> rational fiscal basis, because the copyright holder and infringer are
> picking up the massive tab for the lawyers, not the Crown.
> When an infringement of copyright case is settled in court, no one gets a
> criminal record. The director of public prosecutions has to initiate
> criminal prosecution being satisfied that there is a case to answer under
> section 131 or 198 for ther to be any possibility of a criminal record.
>

Yes, same arrangement often applies to shoplifters and other petty thefts,
especially if mum and dad have the wherewithal to quietly broker a deal.

>>
>>> The criminal cases are usually about counterfeit goods and large scale
>>> bootlegging of cds and dvds for sale in markets, and will only ever
>>> address the tip of the iceberg.
>>
>> Exactly.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2007-07-29 10:32:29 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible wrote:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:f8eoai$6vq$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>> message news:f8ekum$1bh$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>
>>>> In message <***@comcast.com>, impossible
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3c_e.htm#5
>>>>>
>>>>> "1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be
>>>>> available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all
>>>>> fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive
>>>>> step and are capable of industrial application. (5) Subject to
>>>>> paragraph 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3
>>>>> of this Article, patents shall be available and patent rights
>>>>> enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the
>>>>> field of technology and whether products are imported or locally
>>>>> produced.
>>>>>
>>>> So where does it say that patents registered in one country are
>>>> automatically valid in another?
>
>>> Automatically? Who knows what that means?
>
>> In the sense of "not having to do any more work". That is, the MPEG-LA
>> patents, as registered in a jurisdiction outside New Zealand, such as the
>> US, are automatically enforceable in New Zealand without having to apply
>> for patent registrations in New Zealand. That's what I mean
>> by "automatically".
>
> Under the WTO regime, no foreign patent-holder has to apply for patent
> registrations in New Zealand (or anywhere else) in order for their
> patents to be enforceable in WTO-member countries.

Really? Where in TRIPS, or any other treaty NZ might have signed, does it
say that?

> If you want to know more about
> the details of how this process works, I suggest you follow the links I've
> already supplied you.

You are the one making the claim, you are the one who has to supply the
evidence to back it up.
peterwn
2007-07-28 04:52:39 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message

>
>>>>> So which jurisdictions are you claiming are exempt from the MPEG LA?
>>>> All those in which its patents do not apply.
>>> Since patents aplply in all 139 countries that are members of the WTO,
>>> your list will be short..
>> OK, now please come up with NZ registrations for all the patents claimed
>> by
>> MPEG-LA. I'll make it easy for you, by not asking for equivalent
>> registrations for all other WTO members...
>
> NZ registrations are irrelevant.

Foreign patents are not enforceable in NZ. If an overseas company wants
patent protection in NZ, it needs to take out a NZ patent.


> IP is IP, regardless of
> country-of-origin

Patents and copyright are quite different things.

Copyrights are enforceable internationally, but patents are enforceable
only where local patents have been obtained. In any case the patents
need to be able to withstand challenge - some attempts by Microsoft to
obtain NZ patents have been (successfully) or are being challenged.

-- that's what the TRIPS agreement was all about.

This is all about the harmonisation of patent laws between nations, not
mutual enforcement of patents. To the extent that complete
harmonisation will occur is dependent on a multitude of factors. For
example there has been much tooing and froing on the matter of software
patents in the EU, there being a significant core of opposition to such
extension of patent laws.

A serious problem I see in this area is that patent law passed in USA by
corrupt processes (tack-ons to other bills, or blatant bribery, etc) are
being foisted on other nations resulting in a transfer of wealth to
multinationals without benefit in return. I see this as the 21st
Century version of the 18th and 10th Century Enclosures Act in the UK.

> And in
> this area of global commerce, among others, the WTO's authority to enforce
> its dictates supersedes that of national governments.
>

Only by the threat of sanctions. If the WTO could over-ride Australian
rules, then NZ would be freely able to export apples to Australia.

So coming back to the question raised, what is the NZ patent number of
MPEG-LA?
Jason Rumney
2007-07-30 16:36:32 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Jul, 05:27, "impossible" <***@nospam.com> wrote:

> NZ registrations are irrelevant. IP is IP, regardless of
> country-of-origin -- that's what the TRIPS agreement was all about. And in
> this area of global commerce, among others, the WTO's authority to enforce
> its dictates supersedes that of national governments.

It's not quite as simple as that. For a patent to be globally
enforceable, it needs to be registered in a certain number of
countries (I think its 5), and a certain number (3?) have to be major
economies from different regions. The standard practice is to register
in the US, Japan and EU, plus a couple of tinpot countries that are
cheap to register in and basically rubber stamp the applications
without pushing back on any details.
peterwn
2007-07-30 19:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Jason Rumney wrote:
> On 28 Jul, 05:27, "impossible" <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> NZ registrations are irrelevant. IP is IP, regardless of
>> country-of-origin -- that's what the TRIPS agreement was all about. And in
>> this area of global commerce, among others, the WTO's authority to enforce
>> its dictates supersedes that of national governments.
>
> It's not quite as simple as that. For a patent to be globally
> enforceable, it needs to be registered in a certain number of
> countries (I think its 5), and a certain number (3?) have to be major
> economies from different regions. The standard practice is to register
> in the US, Japan and EU, plus a couple of tinpot countries that are
> cheap to register in and basically rubber stamp the applications
> without pushing back on any details.
>
>

On what legal basis under NZ law? Alternatively on what basis under WTO
guidelines that are enforceable on NZ exporters under NZ law?

I agree for practical terms that registering a patent in several key
countries is sufficient to prevent the international mass marketing of a
an infringing product. However this does not confer protection where
the item is made and used in a country where it is not patented.

By the way, USA (although the US Supreme Court is now waking up to
patent shenanigans) is no better than the tinpot countries you refer to.
Just keep the campaign funds to the GOP flowing and Microsoft and
other big business interests can 'dial up' any legislation they want
then try and force it on to the rest of the world via WTO etc (although
I concede there have been some recent setbacks).
Jason Rumney
2007-07-30 23:42:12 UTC
Permalink
On 30 Jul, 20:44, peterwn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> On what legal basis under NZ law? Alternatively on what basis under WTO
> guidelines that are enforceable on NZ exporters under NZ law?

On the basis that NZ is a signatory to the PCT and TRIPS agreements.
peterwn
2007-07-31 02:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Jason Rumney wrote:
> On 30 Jul, 20:44, peterwn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> On what legal basis under NZ law? Alternatively on what basis under WTO
>> guidelines that are enforceable on NZ exporters under NZ law?
>
> On the basis that NZ is a signatory to the PCT and TRIPS agreements.
>

This is not a ground to mount a criminal or civil case against anyone
allegedly 'infringing' foreign patents in NZ courts. The Government
would need to pass the appropriate legislation to give effect such an
aspect of such agreements (ie specific legislation concerning the
recognition and local enforcement of foreign patents).

As things stand, there are very strong grounds for NZ law not to respect
foreign patents bearing in mind that many are improperly or fraudulently
obtained, or the legal frameworks of various overseas patent
jurisdictions are very badly flawed. Moreover thanks to the internet
the lobbying power of ordinary people is increasing all of the time, so
the rich and powerful are losing their ability to have legislation their
way.
Mickey Mouse
2007-07-28 01:29:32 UTC
Permalink
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:f8dvs2$qs8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>
>> Do they individually sign an
>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to ensure
>> they aren't in breach?
>
> Patented under which jurisdictions?

What jurisdictions is GPLv3 applicable to?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2007-07-28 02:02:21 UTC
Permalink
In message <f8e530$ksd$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:f8dvs2$qs8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>> In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>
>>> Do they individually sign an
>>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to
>>> ensure they aren't in breach?
>>
>> Patented under which jurisdictions?
>
> What jurisdictions is GPLv3 applicable to?

Wherever people agree to it. It's a licence agreement, not a law, after all.
peterwn
2007-07-28 02:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Mickey Mouse wrote:
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <***@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
> message news:f8dvs2$qs8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In message <f8dvjt$5bb$***@aioe.org>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>
>>> Do they individually sign an
>>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to
>>> ensure
>>> they aren't in breach?
>>
>> Patented under which jurisdictions?
>
> What jurisdictions is GPLv3 applicable to?

Any jurisdiction that recognises international copyright law. It is the
"user" of the works who needs to wave the licence around as evidence
that he or she is authorised to use the works. There is no such thing
as a copyright licence being 'invalid' in one or more jurisdictions.
Contrary to what some FUD writers say, an "invalid" or untested (in
courts) licence does not put the associated works "out of copyright" -
anyone who repudiates such a licence when sued for breach of copyright
virtually confesses that they have breached copyright.

Patents are quite different - they apply only in the jurisdictions in
which they are issued. A USA patent is not enforceable in NZ for
example. Moreover it seems the majority of patents (especially those
related to software) fall over when challenged because of 'prior art',
'obviousness' or other non compliance with patent law.
sam
2007-07-28 02:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Mickey Mouse wrote:
> Just how do Linux users legally play MPEG2 encoded data (used in DVD's)
> without an accompanying licence to do so? Do they individually sign an
> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to
> ensure they aren't in breach? And just what are the implications of
> entering into such licensing agreements under GPLv3?
>
> http://www.mpegla.com/m2/

Good question
What is the situation if you use VLC on a Windows OS instead of Linux ?
Mickey Mouse
2007-07-28 02:38:30 UTC
Permalink
"sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:***@clear.net.nz...
> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>> Just how do Linux users legally play MPEG2 encoded data (used in DVD's)
>> without an accompanying licence to do so? Do they individually sign an
>> agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented IP to ensure
>> they aren't in breach? And just what are the implications of entering
>> into such licensing agreements under GPLv3?
>>
>> http://www.mpegla.com/m2/
>
> Good question
> What is the situation if you use VLC on a Windows OS instead of Linux ?

Answered here:
http://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_about_personal.2Fcommercial_usage.3F

In commercial software packages (such as the bundled Windows DVD player,
PowerDVD etc) the producer has arranged the licence and has paid the
associated fee, so the user does not have to be concerned with making
special arrangements. In the case of open source software however, the
software producer has not licensed the software, so it becomes the users
responsibility to ensure that they arrange such a licence by contacting MPEG
LA (the group holder of the applicable patents) if they wish to make use of
MPEG2 encoded data (such as DVD's).
sam
2007-07-28 03:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Mickey Mouse wrote:
> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:***@clear.net.nz...
>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>> Just how do Linux users legally play MPEG2 encoded data (used in
>>> DVD's) without an accompanying licence to do so? Do they individually
>>> sign an agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented
>>> IP to ensure they aren't in breach? And just what are the
>>> implications of entering into such licensing agreements under GPLv3?
>>>
>>> http://www.mpegla.com/m2/
>>
>> Good question
>> What is the situation if you use VLC on a Windows OS instead of Linux ?
>
> Answered here:
> http://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_about_personal.2Fcommercial_usage.3F
>
>
> In commercial software packages (such as the bundled Windows DVD player,
> PowerDVD etc) the producer has arranged the licence and has paid the
> associated fee, so the user does not have to be concerned with making
> special arrangements. In the case of open source software however, the
> software producer has not licensed the software, so it becomes the users
> responsibility to ensure that they arrange such a licence by contacting
> MPEG LA (the group holder of the applicable patents) if they wish to
> make use of MPEG2 encoded data (such as DVD's).

So what does a TiVo user do ?
Mickey Mouse
2007-07-28 04:15:25 UTC
Permalink
"sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:***@clear.net.nz...
>
> So what does a TiVo user do ?

I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully licensed
codecs with their packages.

TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
sam
2007-07-28 04:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Mickey Mouse wrote:
> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>
>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>
> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully licensed
> codecs with their packages.
>
> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.


Are they, or are they not Linux users ?
Allistar
2007-07-28 08:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Mickey Mouse wrote:

> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>
>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>
> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully licensed
> codecs with their packages.
>
> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.

How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.

Allistar.
impossible
2007-07-28 15:12:12 UTC
Permalink
"Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
news:***@giganews.com...
> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>
>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>
>>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>>
>> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully licensed
>> codecs with their packages.
>>
>> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
>
> How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.
>

GPL3 forces TiVo to **not** use that code if it wants to continue running
its business the way it has, which brings us back to Linus Torvalds main
objection. TiVo-ization of code (meaning the use of hardware to to prevent
users from modifying software in a way that would violate DRM) is expressly
prohibited under GPL3.
sam
2007-07-28 21:41:05 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
> news:***@giganews.com...
>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>
>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>>> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully licensed
>>> codecs with their packages.
>>>
>>> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
>> How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.
>>
>
> GPL3 forces TiVo to **not** use that code if it wants to continue running
> its business the way it has, which brings us back to Linus Torvalds main
> objection. TiVo-ization of code (meaning the use of hardware to to prevent
> users from modifying software in a way that would violate DRM) is expressly
> prohibited under GPL3.
>
>
Which brings us back to nobody, not even linux kernel developers, of
which TiVo is one, is forcing Tivo to use v3 licensed code. Since TiVos
intention is to stop files being shared, they will obviously have no
need of Samba, and they can obviously negotiate a dual license agreement
with developers of specific packages that they do want to include that
are v3 licensed.
However V3 allows software authors to stop TiVo from using their code in
a way which is against their intentions in publishing their work under a
GPL license, to preserve the freedom of the end user.
impossible
2007-07-28 22:02:00 UTC
Permalink
"sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46abb7f1$***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>
>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>>>> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully licensed
>>>> codecs with their packages.
>>>>
>>>> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
>>> How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.
>>>
>>
>> GPL3 forces TiVo to **not** use that code if it wants to continue running
>> its business the way it has, which brings us back to Linus Torvalds main
>> objection. TiVo-ization of code (meaning the use of hardware to to
>> prevent users from modifying software in a way that would violate DRM) is
>> expressly prohibited under GPL3.
> Which brings us back to nobody, not even linux kernel developers, of which
> TiVo is one, is forcing Tivo to use v3 licensed code.

You really are in denial about Linus Torvald's objection to GPL3, which
originated precisely over this issue.

> Since TiVos intention is to stop files being shared, they will obviously
> have no need of Samba, and they can obviously negotiate a dual license
> agreement with developers of specific packages that they do want to
> include that are v3 licensed.

Irrelevant.

> However V3 allows software authors to stop TiVo from using their code in a
> way which is against their intentions in publishing their work under a GPL
> license, to preserve the freedom of the end user.

Keep chganting that line over and again if you like. But doesn't
answerTorvald's objection one bit.
sam
2007-07-28 22:33:55 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46abb7f1$***@clear.net.nz...
>> impossible wrote:
>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>>>>> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully licensed
>>>>> codecs with their packages.
>>>>>
>>>>> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
>>>> How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.
>>>>
>>> GPL3 forces TiVo to **not** use that code if it wants to continue running
>>> its business the way it has, which brings us back to Linus Torvalds main
>>> objection. TiVo-ization of code (meaning the use of hardware to to
>>> prevent users from modifying software in a way that would violate DRM) is
>>> expressly prohibited under GPL3.
>> Which brings us back to nobody, not even linux kernel developers, of which
>> TiVo is one, is forcing Tivo to use v3 licensed code.
>
> You really are in denial about Linus Torvald's objection to GPL3, which
> originated precisely over this issue.
>

Denial ?

They can use any license they like for the kernel.
As the copyright holders, it is their right to do so.
Other copyright holders have the right to license their applications in
a way that does not allow a packager to restrict the rights of the end
user. That is also their right to do so, to explicitly exclude the
packager from restricting the rights of the end user who is a licensee
in a way not intended by the licenser.
TiVo can negotiate a dual license agreement with those other copyright
holders if they want to.
impossible
2007-07-28 22:49:34 UTC
Permalink
"sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46abc453$***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>> news:46abb7f1$***@clear.net.nz...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>>>>>> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully
>>>>>> licensed
>>>>>> codecs with their packages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
>>>>> How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.
>>>>>
>>>> GPL3 forces TiVo to **not** use that code if it wants to continue
>>>> running its business the way it has, which brings us back to Linus
>>>> Torvalds main objection. TiVo-ization of code (meaning the use of
>>>> hardware to to prevent users from modifying software in a way that
>>>> would violate DRM) is expressly prohibited under GPL3.
>>> Which brings us back to nobody, not even linux kernel developers, of
>>> which TiVo is one, is forcing Tivo to use v3 licensed code.
>>
>> You really are in denial about Linus Torvald's objection to GPL3, which
>> originated precisely over this issue.
>>
>
> Denial ?
>
> They can use any license they like for the kernel.
> As the copyright holders, it is their right to do so.

That's not the issue.

> Other copyright holders have the right to license their applications in a
> way that does not allow a packager to restrict the rights of the end user.
> That is also their right to do so, to explicitly exclude the packager from
> restricting the rights of the end user who is a licensee in a way not
> intended by the licenser.

That's also not the issue.

> TiVo can negotiate a dual license agreement with those other copyright
> holders if they want to.

Yes. But they *cannot** use GPL3'd code unless they alter their business
model to suit the ideological pretensions of the FSF. That's the issue
Torvald's has raised -- restricting freedom in the name of freedom is simply
hypocritical.
sam
2007-07-28 23:24:40 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46abc453$***@clear.net.nz...
>> impossible wrote:
>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>> news:46abb7f1$***@clear.net.nz...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>>>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>>>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>>>>>>> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully
>>>>>>> licensed
>>>>>>> codecs with their packages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
>>>>>> How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.
>>>>>>
>>>>> GPL3 forces TiVo to **not** use that code if it wants to continue
>>>>> running its business the way it has, which brings us back to Linus
>>>>> Torvalds main objection. TiVo-ization of code (meaning the use of
>>>>> hardware to to prevent users from modifying software in a way that
>>>>> would violate DRM) is expressly prohibited under GPL3.
>>>> Which brings us back to nobody, not even linux kernel developers, of
>>>> which TiVo is one, is forcing Tivo to use v3 licensed code.
>>> You really are in denial about Linus Torvald's objection to GPL3, which
>>> originated precisely over this issue.
>>>
>> Denial ?
>>
>> They can use any license they like for the kernel.
>> As the copyright holders, it is their right to do so.
>
> That's not the issue.
>
>> Other copyright holders have the right to license their applications in a
>> way that does not allow a packager to restrict the rights of the end user.
>> That is also their right to do so, to explicitly exclude the packager from
>> restricting the rights of the end user who is a licensee in a way not
>> intended by the licenser.
>
> That's also not the issue.
>
>> TiVo can negotiate a dual license agreement with those other copyright
>> holders if they want to.
>
> Yes. But they *cannot** use GPL3'd code unless they alter their business
> model to suit the ideological pretensions of the FSF. That's the issue
> Torvald's has raised -- restricting freedom in the name of freedom is simply
> hypocritical.
>
>

The license isn't intended to confer a right for the packager to assume
further rights over the end user's utilization.

Exclusive rights for the packager are not "freedom".
peterwn
2007-07-28 23:51:37 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:

>
> Yes. But they *cannot** use GPL3'd code unless they alter their business
> model to suit the ideological pretensions of the FSF.

Which is what the company needs to decide for itself. If the creator of
the 'work' chooses to impose a GPLv3 licence, that is the creator's
private business, the ideology of the FSF, etc has nothing to do with
it. If the creator does not 'buy into' FSF's philosophies, the creator
can stick with GPLv2 or use some other licence, or even declare the code
is outside copyright - the creator put in the hard work, so it is the
creator's choice.

The company wishing to use the 'work' can then make the decision whether
to fit the business model around the GPL requirements or to look
elsewhere for a product that better fits the company's business model.
This may well be a Microsoft or some other proprietary product. It is
the company's choice.

> That's the issue
> Torvald's has raised -- restricting freedom in the name of freedom is simply
> hypocritical.
>

Linus's statement on this needs to be carefully read in its original
form and in the light of its context - it cannot be reduced to a quick
'sound bite' as done here.

Linus is quite at liberty to impose on Linux (ie the kernel) any licence
he sees fit, and to require kernel writers and maintainers to follow
suit. Linus does not fully accept GPLv2, he has added a 'preamble' to
it which amends the way which it can be interpreted. Linus obviously
has good reason not to adopt GPLv3, these probably involving factors
relevant to the kernel, but not to applications software. There is
nothing to stop anyone 'forking' the kernel and placing additions and
changes under GPLv3, if he can get sufficient following for a viable 'fork'.

What is the more fundamental problem is that those who wish to
'monetise' GPL'd works find the GPL to be a horrid impediment, this
being precisely what it was designed to do - to discourage peoples'
creative efforts being 'ripped off' with nothing being returned.
sam
2007-07-29 01:57:00 UTC
Permalink
peterwn wrote:
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes. But they *cannot** use GPL3'd code unless they alter their
>> business model to suit the ideological pretensions of the FSF.
>
> Which is what the company needs to decide for itself. If the creator of
> the 'work' chooses to impose a GPLv3 licence, that is the creator's
> private business, the ideology of the FSF, etc has nothing to do with
> it. If the creator does not 'buy into' FSF's philosophies, the creator
> can stick with GPLv2 or use some other licence, or even declare the code
> is outside copyright - the creator put in the hard work, so it is the
> creator's choice.
>
> The company wishing to use the 'work' can then make the decision whether
> to fit the business model around the GPL requirements or to look
> elsewhere for a product that better fits the company's business model.
> This may well be a Microsoft or some other proprietary product. It is
> the company's choice.
>
>> That's the issue Torvald's has raised -- restricting freedom in the
>> name of freedom is simply hypocritical.
>
> Linus's statement on this needs to be carefully read in its original
> form and in the light of its context - it cannot be reduced to a quick
> 'sound bite' as done here.
>
> Linus is quite at liberty to impose on Linux (ie the kernel) any licence
> he sees fit, and to require kernel writers and maintainers to follow
> suit. Linus does not fully accept GPLv2, he has added a 'preamble' to
> it which amends the way which it can be interpreted. Linus obviously
> has good reason not to adopt GPLv3, these probably involving factors
> relevant to the kernel, but not to applications software. There is
> nothing to stop anyone 'forking' the kernel and placing additions and
> changes under GPLv3, if he can get sufficient following for a viable
> 'fork'.
>
> What is the more fundamental problem is that those who wish to
> 'monetise' GPL'd works find the GPL to be a horrid impediment, this
> being precisely what it was designed to do - to discourage peoples'
> creative efforts being 'ripped off' with nothing being returned.

I think that is a bit of a slur against TiVo, who have fulfilled their
obligations to publish their source code contibutions and no one has
disputed that.
The issue with TiVo and v3 is specifically that their DRM protection of
the software image.
Torvalds sees it as TiVo's right to control what is installed on their
customers storage device. FSF sees it as an additional encumberance to
the end user not conferred by the licence, and has clarified that intent.
They are both valid points of view, and it is good to have practical
advocacy within the FOSS community.
"impossible"'s barracking is intended to denigrate ABW (anything but
Windows) rather than any concern for TiVos's "freedom".
peterwn
2007-07-29 03:09:04 UTC
Permalink
sam wrote:

>
> I think that is a bit of a slur against TiVo, who have fulfilled their
> obligations to publish their source code contibutions and no one has
> disputed that.
> The issue with TiVo and v3 is specifically that their DRM protection of
> the software image.

The 'forward looking' issue in some peoples' minds is whether they wish
to write or update code that can be used in this manner. It is their
personal choice. FSF in GPLv3 has supplied a 'tool' which can be
applied by those so inclined, but nothing is forcing these creators to
use such tools.

As an example a landlords association can prepare a standard lease
document for its members' use, but it is not mandatory for members to
use it for any particular tenancy. The GPL v2 or v3 is no different
from such lease forms.

As such I do not see it as a 'slur' on TiVo.

> Torvalds sees it as TiVo's right to control what is installed on their
> customers storage device.

That is his view and he seems to have good reason for this with respect
to the Linux kernel. This is not the first time he has expressed a view
on DRM - he has indicated previously that he does not object to Linux
operating system based DRM systems.

> FSF sees it as an additional encumberance to
> the end user not conferred by the licence, and has clarified that intent.
> They are both valid points of view, and it is good to have practical
> advocacy within the FOSS community.

Agreed.

> "impossible"'s barracking is intended to denigrate ABW (anything but
> Windows) rather than any concern for TiVos's "freedom".

Of course this is the whole thrust of postings from "Impossible" and
"Mickey Mouse", but in the last few days I have refrained from 'biting'
with respect to the ABW aspect.

There are perfectly adequate commentaries about such matters on:
http://www.groklaw.net and the
comp.os.linux.advocacy newsgroup.
sam
2007-07-29 03:28:06 UTC
Permalink
peterwn wrote:
> sam wrote:
>
>>
>> I think that is a bit of a slur against TiVo, who have fulfilled their
>> obligations to publish their source code contibutions and no one has
>> disputed that.
>> The issue with TiVo and v3 is specifically that their DRM protection
>> of the software image.
>
> The 'forward looking' issue in some peoples' minds is whether they wish
> to write or update code that can be used in this manner. It is their
> personal choice. FSF in GPLv3 has supplied a 'tool' which can be
> applied by those so inclined, but nothing is forcing these creators to
> use such tools.
>
> As an example a landlords association can prepare a standard lease
> document for its members' use, but it is not mandatory for members to
> use it for any particular tenancy. The GPL v2 or v3 is no different
> from such lease forms.
>
> As such I do not see it as a 'slur' on TiVo.
>
What I referred to as a slur was your implication that TiVo ripped off
creative people and gave nothing back, as if the GPL was intended to
impose altruism.
They did not rip off anyone, they were as compliant as any other user
and that was not FSF's complaint about TiVo
Spreading a bit more mud around does nothing to clarify the issues
addressed by FSF's attempt to preserve the rights of the end user.
Allistar
2007-07-29 20:39:56 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:

> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
> news:***@giganews.com...
>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>
>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>> news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>
>>>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>>>
>>> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully licensed
>>> codecs with their packages.
>>>
>>> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
>>
>> How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.
>>
>
> GPL3 forces TiVo to **not** use that code if it wants to continue running
> its business the way it has, which brings us back to Linus Torvalds main
> objection.

The license prevents Tivo from using code it didn't write? Cry me a river.

Tivo have reduced users' freedoms by preventing them from modifying the code
on a Tivo box. The modification and use of modified code is one of the key
freedoms provided by GPLv2. Tivo used hardware to only allow certified
binaries from running.

GPLv3 gives users back that freedom.

> TiVo-ization of code (meaning the use of hardware to to prevent
> users from modifying software in a way that would violate DRM) is
> expressly prohibited under GPL3.

Allistar.
impossible
2007-07-29 22:03:35 UTC
Permalink
"Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
news:***@giganews.com...
> impossible wrote:
>
>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>
>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>
>>>>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>>>>
>>>> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully licensed
>>>> codecs with their packages.
>>>>
>>>> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
>>>
>>> How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.
>>>
>>
>> GPL3 forces TiVo to **not** use that code if it wants to continue running
>> its business the way it has, which brings us back to Linus Torvalds main
>> objection.
>
> The license prevents Tivo from using code it didn't write? Cry me a river.

I thought using code you didn't write was considered a good thing in the
open-source world. At least it was before GPL3 came along. Are you sayiong
now that unless devloeprs and end-users are willing to play ball with FSF,
ideologically speaking, they're on their own?

>
> Tivo have reduced users' freedoms by preventing them from modifying the
> code
> on a Tivo box. The modification and use of modified code is one of the key
> freedoms provided by GPLv2. Tivo used hardware to only allow certified
> binaries from running.
>
> GPLv3 gives users back that freedom.
>

GPL3 gives some users more freedom and other users less. Why can't you just
admit that?

>> TiVo-ization of code (meaning the use of hardware to to prevent
>> users from modifying software in a way that would violate DRM) is
>> expressly prohibited under GPL3.
>
sam
2007-07-29 22:35:12 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:

>
> GPL3 gives some users more freedom and other users less. Why can't you just
> admit that?
>

GPL v3 specifically invalidates a technique used by TiVo to deprive end
users of rights granted to them by the copyright holder.

TiVo was not explicitly granted that freedom by the copyright holders in
previous licence versions, and Alan Cox says it is arguable that v2 not
only covers programmes and scripts but also includes the cryptographic
keys used to sign a binary. Its open to abuse.
Allistar
2007-07-30 05:10:54 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:

> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
> news:***@giganews.com...
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully
>>>>> licensed codecs with their packages.
>>>>>
>>>>> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
>>>>
>>>> How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.
>>>>
>>>
>>> GPL3 forces TiVo to **not** use that code if it wants to continue
>>> running its business the way it has, which brings us back to Linus
>>> Torvalds main objection.
>>
>> The license prevents Tivo from using code it didn't write? Cry me a
>> river.
>
> I thought using code you didn't write was considered a good thing in the
> open-source world. At least it was before GPL3 came along. Are you sayiong
> now that unless devloeprs and end-users are willing to play ball with FSF,
> ideologically speaking, they're on their own?

Using code, modifying it, releasing it and allowing others to release it and
run the released version is a good thing. Tivo used hardware to prevent
those last two freedoms (the ability to modify and run the modified
version).

Tivo removed freedom, GPLv3 gives that freedom back (for GPLv3 code that
is).

>> Tivo have reduced users' freedoms by preventing them from modifying the
>> code
>> on a Tivo box. The modification and use of modified code is one of the
>> key freedoms provided by GPLv2. Tivo used hardware to only allow
>> certified binaries from running.
>>
>> GPLv3 gives users back that freedom.
>
> GPL3 gives some users more freedom and other users less. Why can't you
> just admit that?

If you consider removing the ability for users to run modified code on their
own hardware a "freedom" that Tivo should have, then yes, GPL3 takes
freedom away from some users (namely Tivo in this case).

But is preventing someone from running modified GPLv2 code a freedom Tivo
should have? Is it in the spirit of the GPL? Was it ever an intention of
the GPL licenses to *prevent* users from running modified code? Of course
it wasn't - running modified code is a fundamental right provided by
licenses like the GPL. GPLv3 remedies this issue.

>>> TiVo-ization of code (meaning the use of hardware to to prevent
>>> users from modifying software in a way that would violate DRM) is
>>> expressly prohibited under GPL3.

Allistar.
impossible
2007-07-30 15:30:03 UTC
Permalink
"Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
news:***@giganews.com...
> impossible wrote:
>
>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully
>>>>>> licensed codecs with their packages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GPL3 forces TiVo to **not** use that code if it wants to continue
>>>> running its business the way it has, which brings us back to Linus
>>>> Torvalds main objection.
>>>
>>> The license prevents Tivo from using code it didn't write? Cry me a
>>> river.
>>
>> I thought using code you didn't write was considered a good thing in the
>> open-source world. At least it was before GPL3 came along. Are you
>> sayiong
>> now that unless devloeprs and end-users are willing to play ball with
>> FSF,
>> ideologically speaking, they're on their own?
>
> Using code, modifying it, releasing it and allowing others to release it
> and
> run the released version is a good thing. Tivo used hardware to prevent
> those last two freedoms (the ability to modify and run the modified
> version).

TiVo used hardware, you mean, to prevent hackers from illegally accessing
DRM. By prohibiting this practice, GPL3 privileges free-rding on other
people's creativitry and thereby undermines the freedom of intellectual
property owners.

>
> Tivo removed freedom, GPLv3 gives that freedom back (for GPLv3 code that
> is).
>
>>> Tivo have reduced users' freedoms by preventing them from modifying the
>>> code
>>> on a Tivo box. The modification and use of modified code is one of the
>>> key freedoms provided by GPLv2. Tivo used hardware to only allow
>>> certified binaries from running.
>>>
>>> GPLv3 gives users back that freedom.
>>
>> GPL3 gives some users more freedom and other users less. Why can't you
>> just admit that?
>
> If you consider removing the ability for users to run modified code on
> their
> own hardware a "freedom" that Tivo should have, then yes, GPL3 takes
> freedom away from some users (namely Tivo in this case).
>
GPL3 also takes freedom away from owners of intellectual property who will
now be subject to wanton theft.

> But is preventing someone from running modified GPLv2 code a freedom Tivo
> should have?

If your business is based on providing access to copyrighted content, then
absolutely. TiVo is obligated to protect that copyrightred material from
infringement.

> Is it in the spirit of the GPL? Was it ever an intention of
> the GPL licenses to *prevent* users from running modified code? Of course
> it wasn't - running modified code is a fundamental right provided by
> licenses like the GPL. GPLv3 remedies this issue.
>

I see your point there, but then it's no secret that FSF has never had any
respect for intellectual property belonging to others. This is, of course,
Linus Torvald's objection -- that FSF is imposing its own narrowly
interested morality on others.

>>>> TiVo-ization of code (meaning the use of hardware to to prevent
>>>> users from modifying software in a way that would violate DRM) is
>>>> expressly prohibited under GPL3.
>
> Allistar.
>
Jasen Betts
2007-07-31 09:06:37 UTC
Permalink
On 2007-07-30, impossible <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> Using code, modifying it, releasing it and allowing others to release it
>> and
>> run the released version is a good thing. Tivo used hardware to prevent
>> those last two freedoms (the ability to modify and run the modified
>> version).
>
> TiVo used hardware, you mean, to prevent hackers from illegally accessing
> DRM.

they prevented all users from modifyng the behavior of the device in any
way ligal ir illegal. They merely foreced the pirates to find a different way to
bypass DRM.

> By prohibiting this practice, GPL3 privileges free-rding on other
> people's creativitry

exactly!

> and thereby undermines the freedom of intellectual
> property owners.

Not at all!

Bye.
Jasen
Allistar
2007-07-31 12:45:15 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:

> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
> news:***@giganews.com...
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>>>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully
>>>>>>> licensed codecs with their packages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> GPL3 forces TiVo to **not** use that code if it wants to continue
>>>>> running its business the way it has, which brings us back to Linus
>>>>> Torvalds main objection.
>>>>
>>>> The license prevents Tivo from using code it didn't write? Cry me a
>>>> river.
>>>
>>> I thought using code you didn't write was considered a good thing in the
>>> open-source world. At least it was before GPL3 came along. Are you
>>> sayiong
>>> now that unless devloeprs and end-users are willing to play ball with
>>> FSF,
>>> ideologically speaking, they're on their own?
>>
>> Using code, modifying it, releasing it and allowing others to release it
>> and
>> run the released version is a good thing. Tivo used hardware to prevent
>> those last two freedoms (the ability to modify and run the modified
>> version).
>
> TiVo used hardware, you mean, to prevent hackers from illegally accessing
> DRM. By prohibiting this practice, GPL3 privileges free-rding on other
> people's creativitry and thereby undermines the freedom of intellectual
> property owners.

While the intention may have been to protect content, the end result is the
prevention of any sort of modification.

>> Tivo removed freedom, GPLv3 gives that freedom back (for GPLv3 code that
>> is).
>>
>>>> Tivo have reduced users' freedoms by preventing them from modifying the
>>>> code
>>>> on a Tivo box. The modification and use of modified code is one of the
>>>> key freedoms provided by GPLv2. Tivo used hardware to only allow
>>>> certified binaries from running.
>>>>
>>>> GPLv3 gives users back that freedom.
>>>
>>> GPL3 gives some users more freedom and other users less. Why can't you
>>> just admit that?
>>
>> If you consider removing the ability for users to run modified code on
>> their
>> own hardware a "freedom" that Tivo should have, then yes, GPL3 takes
>> freedom away from some users (namely Tivo in this case).
>>
> GPL3 also takes freedom away from owners of intellectual property who will
> now be subject to wanton theft.

No. GPL3 doesn't do that. People breaking copyright laws do that.

It's not the fault of the GPL that some people choose to pirate movies or to
illegal things with protected content. At least place the blame on the
guilty, not on the license.

>> But is preventing someone from running modified GPLv2 code a freedom Tivo
>> should have?
>
> If your business is based on providing access to copyrighted content, then
> absolutely. TiVo is obligated to protect that copyrightred material from
> infringement.

Are they?

They are also obligated to allow people to modify their code and run those
modifications.

>> Is it in the spirit of the GPL? Was it ever an intention of
>> the GPL licenses to *prevent* users from running modified code? Of course
>> it wasn't - running modified code is a fundamental right provided by
>> licenses like the GPL. GPLv3 remedies this issue.
>
> I see your point there, but then it's no secret that FSF has never had any
> respect for intellectual property belonging to others. This is, of course,
> Linus Torvald's objection -- that FSF is imposing its own narrowly
> interested morality on others.

The FSF is not forcing anyone to use the GPLv3.

If anyone decided to use GPLv3, then it's their narrowly interested morality
at question, not that of the FSF.

>>>>> TiVo-ization of code (meaning the use of hardware to to prevent
>>>>> users from modifying software in a way that would violate DRM) is
>>>>> expressly prohibited under GPL3.
>>
>> Allistar.

Allistar.
impossible
2007-07-31 14:57:48 UTC
Permalink
"Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
news:***@giganews.com...
> impossible wrote:
>
>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>>>>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully
>>>>>>>> licensed codecs with their packages.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GPL3 forces TiVo to **not** use that code if it wants to continue
>>>>>> running its business the way it has, which brings us back to Linus
>>>>>> Torvalds main objection.
>>>>>
>>>>> The license prevents Tivo from using code it didn't write? Cry me a
>>>>> river.
>>>>
>>>> I thought using code you didn't write was considered a good thing in
>>>> the
>>>> open-source world. At least it was before GPL3 came along. Are you
>>>> sayiong
>>>> now that unless devloeprs and end-users are willing to play ball with
>>>> FSF,
>>>> ideologically speaking, they're on their own?
>>>
>>> Using code, modifying it, releasing it and allowing others to release it
>>> and
>>> run the released version is a good thing. Tivo used hardware to prevent
>>> those last two freedoms (the ability to modify and run the modified
>>> version).
>>
>> TiVo used hardware, you mean, to prevent hackers from illegally
>> accessing
>> DRM. By prohibiting this practice, GPL3 privileges free-rding on other
>> people's creativitry and thereby undermines the freedom of intellectual
>> property owners.
>
> While the intention may have been to protect content, the end result is
> the
> prevention of any sort of modification.
>

Yeah, right. What else would you be wanting to hack the TiVo code to do?
This again was Linus's complaint about GPL3 -- that it abandoned any sense
of the practicalities of the situation.

>>> Tivo removed freedom, GPLv3 gives that freedom back (for GPLv3 code that
>>> is).
>>>
>>>>> Tivo have reduced users' freedoms by preventing them from modifying
>>>>> the
>>>>> code
>>>>> on a Tivo box. The modification and use of modified code is one of the
>>>>> key freedoms provided by GPLv2. Tivo used hardware to only allow
>>>>> certified binaries from running.
>>>>>
>>>>> GPLv3 gives users back that freedom.
>>>>
>>>> GPL3 gives some users more freedom and other users less. Why can't you
>>>> just admit that?
>>>
>>> If you consider removing the ability for users to run modified code on
>>> their
>>> own hardware a "freedom" that Tivo should have, then yes, GPL3 takes
>>> freedom away from some users (namely Tivo in this case).
>>>
>> GPL3 also takes freedom away from owners of intellectual property who
>> will
>> now be subject to wanton theft.
>
> No. GPL3 doesn't do that. People breaking copyright laws do that.
>

A license to steal is a license to steal.

> It's not the fault of the GPL that some people choose to pirate movies or
> to
> illegal things with protected content. At least place the blame on the
> guilty, not on the license.
>
>>> But is preventing someone from running modified GPLv2 code a freedom
>>> Tivo
>>> should have?
>>
>> If your business is based on providing access to copyrighted content,
>> then
>> absolutely. TiVo is obligated to protect that copyrightred material from
>> infringement.
>
> Are they?
>

As a condition of distributing that copyrighted material, yes, absolutely.

> They are also obligated to allow people to modify their code and run those
> modifications.
>

Not so as to allow theft of copyrighted materials, no. This is where your
liberatrian anarchism breaks down -- becausae you need rules, boundaries.

>>> Is it in the spirit of the GPL? Was it ever an intention of
>>> the GPL licenses to *prevent* users from running modified code? Of
>>> course
>>> it wasn't - running modified code is a fundamental right provided by
>>> licenses like the GPL. GPLv3 remedies this issue.
>>
>> I see your point there, but then it's no secret that FSF has never had
>> any
>> respect for intellectual property belonging to others. This is, of
>> course,
>> Linus Torvald's objection -- that FSF is imposing its own narrowly
>> interested morality on others.
>
> The FSF is not forcing anyone to use the GPLv3.
>

Yeah, right. And Microsoft is not forcing anyone to pay for Windows -- we
know all that. But if a customer is heavily invested in GPL2 code, and then
finds that updates/.improvements of that code are only released under the
prohibitionist regime of GPL3, then they will surely be forced to make a
"free choice" they hadn't bargained for.

> If anyone decided to use GPLv3, then it's their narrowly interested
> morality
> at question, not that of the FSF.
>

Before GPL3, using OSS didn't involve signing on to any morals clause -- it
was strictly business.

>>>>>> TiVo-ization of code (meaning the use of hardware to to prevent
>>>>>> users from modifying software in a way that would violate DRM) is
>>>>>> expressly prohibited under GPL3.
>>>
sam
2007-07-31 21:41:28 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
> news:***@giganews.com...
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>>>>>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>>>>>>>>> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully
>>>>>>>>> licensed codecs with their packages.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
>>>>>>>> How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GPL3 forces TiVo to **not** use that code if it wants to continue
>>>>>>> running its business the way it has, which brings us back to Linus
>>>>>>> Torvalds main objection.
>>>>>> The license prevents Tivo from using code it didn't write? Cry me a
>>>>>> river.
>>>>> I thought using code you didn't write was considered a good thing in
>>>>> the
>>>>> open-source world. At least it was before GPL3 came along. Are you
>>>>> sayiong
>>>>> now that unless devloeprs and end-users are willing to play ball with
>>>>> FSF,
>>>>> ideologically speaking, they're on their own?
>>>> Using code, modifying it, releasing it and allowing others to release it
>>>> and
>>>> run the released version is a good thing. Tivo used hardware to prevent
>>>> those last two freedoms (the ability to modify and run the modified
>>>> version).
>>> TiVo used hardware, you mean, to prevent hackers from illegally
>>> accessing
>>> DRM. By prohibiting this practice, GPL3 privileges free-rding on other
>>> people's creativitry and thereby undermines the freedom of intellectual
>>> property owners.
>> While the intention may have been to protect content, the end result is
>> the
>> prevention of any sort of modification.
>>
>
> Yeah, right. What else would you be wanting to hack the TiVo code to do?

To use in Australia and New Zealand with a different EPG is one example
Its not illegal, TiVo just don't want it to be possible because their US
subscription business is based on dependency on their EPG



> This again was Linus's complaint about GPL3 -- that it abandoned any sense
> of the practicalities of the situation.
>
>>>> Tivo removed freedom, GPLv3 gives that freedom back (for GPLv3 code that
>>>> is).
>>>>
>>>>>> Tivo have reduced users' freedoms by preventing them from modifying
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> code
>>>>>> on a Tivo box. The modification and use of modified code is one of the
>>>>>> key freedoms provided by GPLv2. Tivo used hardware to only allow
>>>>>> certified binaries from running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GPLv3 gives users back that freedom.
>>>>> GPL3 gives some users more freedom and other users less. Why can't you
>>>>> just admit that?
>>>> If you consider removing the ability for users to run modified code on
>>>> their
>>>> own hardware a "freedom" that Tivo should have, then yes, GPL3 takes
>>>> freedom away from some users (namely Tivo in this case).
>>>>
>>> GPL3 also takes freedom away from owners of intellectual property who
>>> will
>>> now be subject to wanton theft.
>> No. GPL3 doesn't do that. People breaking copyright laws do that.
>>
>
> A license to steal is a license to steal.
>
>> It's not the fault of the GPL that some people choose to pirate movies or
>> to
>> illegal things with protected content. At least place the blame on the
>> guilty, not on the license.
>>
>>>> But is preventing someone from running modified GPLv2 code a freedom
>>>> Tivo
>>>> should have?
>>> If your business is based on providing access to copyrighted content,
>>> then
>>> absolutely. TiVo is obligated to protect that copyrightred material from
>>> infringement.
>> Are they?
>>
>
> As a condition of distributing that copyrighted material, yes, absolutely.
>
>> They are also obligated to allow people to modify their code and run those
>> modifications.
>>
>
> Not so as to allow theft of copyrighted materials, no. This is where your
> liberatrian anarchism breaks down -- becausae you need rules, boundaries.
>
>>>> Is it in the spirit of the GPL? Was it ever an intention of
>>>> the GPL licenses to *prevent* users from running modified code? Of
>>>> course
>>>> it wasn't - running modified code is a fundamental right provided by
>>>> licenses like the GPL. GPLv3 remedies this issue.
>>> I see your point there, but then it's no secret that FSF has never had
>>> any
>>> respect for intellectual property belonging to others. This is, of
>>> course,
>>> Linus Torvald's objection -- that FSF is imposing its own narrowly
>>> interested morality on others.
>> The FSF is not forcing anyone to use the GPLv3.
>>
>
> Yeah, right. And Microsoft is not forcing anyone to pay for Windows -- we
> know all that. But if a customer is heavily invested in GPL2 code, and then
> finds that updates/.improvements of that code are only released under the
> prohibitionist regime of GPL3, then they will surely be forced to make a
> "free choice" they hadn't bargained for.

They should have, thats business, upstream suppliers change ownership
and abandon software, change licensing, and make disclaimers that mods
to both software and licensing are at their sole discretion.
Especially if you based your product design on an unintended license
loophole, you have no justification to complain when it is fixed.
You can never depend on future licensing constraints for corporate
products either.



>
>> If anyone decided to use GPLv3, then it's their narrowly interested
>> morality
>> at question, not that of the FSF.
>>
>
> Before GPL3, using OSS didn't involve signing on to any morals clause -- it
> was strictly business.

It still is GPL v3 preserves the contract between the licensor and the
licensee from the intervention of a third party.
impossible
2007-07-31 22:57:35 UTC
Permalink
"sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46afac87$***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Allistar" <***@b.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>>>>>>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>>>>>>>>>> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully
>>>>>>>>>> licensed codecs with their packages.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.
>>>>>>>>> How so? No body is forcing Tivo to use GPL3 code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GPL3 forces TiVo to **not** use that code if it wants to continue
>>>>>>>> running its business the way it has, which brings us back to Linus
>>>>>>>> Torvalds main objection.
>>>>>>> The license prevents Tivo from using code it didn't write? Cry me a
>>>>>>> river.
>>>>>> I thought using code you didn't write was considered a good thing in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> open-source world. At least it was before GPL3 came along. Are you
>>>>>> sayiong
>>>>>> now that unless devloeprs and end-users are willing to play ball with
>>>>>> FSF,
>>>>>> ideologically speaking, they're on their own?
>>>>> Using code, modifying it, releasing it and allowing others to release
>>>>> it
>>>>> and
>>>>> run the released version is a good thing. Tivo used hardware to
>>>>> prevent
>>>>> those last two freedoms (the ability to modify and run the modified
>>>>> version).
>>>> TiVo used hardware, you mean, to prevent hackers from illegally
>>>> accessing
>>>> DRM. By prohibiting this practice, GPL3 privileges free-rding on other
>>>> people's creativitry and thereby undermines the freedom of intellectual
>>>> property owners.
>>> While the intention may have been to protect content, the end result is
>>> the
>>> prevention of any sort of modification.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, right. What else would you be wanting to hack the TiVo code to do?
>
> To use in Australia and New Zealand with a different EPG is one example
> Its not illegal, TiVo just don't want it to be possible because their US
> subscription business is based on dependency on their EPG
>

EPG is a patented tehnology, and the license fee is paid for by the
manufacturer. What gives you the right to fiddle with it?

>
>> This again was Linus's complaint about GPL3 -- that it abandoned any
>> sense of the practicalities of the situation.
>>
>>>>> Tivo removed freedom, GPLv3 gives that freedom back (for GPLv3 code
>>>>> that
>>>>> is).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tivo have reduced users' freedoms by preventing them from modifying
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>> on a Tivo box. The modification and use of modified code is one of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> key freedoms provided by GPLv2. Tivo used hardware to only allow
>>>>>>> certified binaries from running.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GPLv3 gives users back that freedom.
>>>>>> GPL3 gives some users more freedom and other users less. Why can't
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> just admit that?
>>>>> If you consider removing the ability for users to run modified code on
>>>>> their
>>>>> own hardware a "freedom" that Tivo should have, then yes, GPL3 takes
>>>>> freedom away from some users (namely Tivo in this case).
>>>>>
>>>> GPL3 also takes freedom away from owners of intellectual property who
>>>> will
>>>> now be subject to wanton theft.
>>> No. GPL3 doesn't do that. People breaking copyright laws do that.
>>>
>>
>> A license to steal is a license to steal.
>>
>>> It's not the fault of the GPL that some people choose to pirate movies
>>> or to
>>> illegal things with protected content. At least place the blame on the
>>> guilty, not on the license.
>>>
>>>>> But is preventing someone from running modified GPLv2 code a freedom
>>>>> Tivo
>>>>> should have?
>>>> If your business is based on providing access to copyrighted content,
>>>> then
>>>> absolutely. TiVo is obligated to protect that copyrightred material
>>>> from
>>>> infringement.
>>> Are they?
>>>
>>
>> As a condition of distributing that copyrighted material, yes,
>> absolutely.
>>
>>> They are also obligated to allow people to modify their code and run
>>> those
>>> modifications.
>>>
>>
>> Not so as to allow theft of copyrighted materials, no. This is where your
>> liberatrian anarchism breaks down -- becausae you need rules, boundaries.
>>
>>>>> Is it in the spirit of the GPL? Was it ever an intention of
>>>>> the GPL licenses to *prevent* users from running modified code? Of
>>>>> course
>>>>> it wasn't - running modified code is a fundamental right provided by
>>>>> licenses like the GPL. GPLv3 remedies this issue.
>>>> I see your point there, but then it's no secret that FSF has never had
>>>> any
>>>> respect for intellectual property belonging to others. This is, of
>>>> course,
>>>> Linus Torvald's objection -- that FSF is imposing its own narrowly
>>>> interested morality on others.
>>> The FSF is not forcing anyone to use the GPLv3.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, right. And Microsoft is not forcing anyone to pay for Windows -- we
>> know all that. But if a customer is heavily invested in GPL2 code, and
>> then finds that updates/.improvements of that code are only released
>> under the prohibitionist regime of GPL3, then they will surely be forced
>> to make a "free choice" they hadn't bargained for.
>
> They should have, thats business, upstream suppliers change ownership and
> abandon software, change licensing, and make disclaimers that mods to both
> software and licensing are at their sole discretion.
> Especially if you based your product design on an unintended license
> loophole, you have no justification to complain when it is fixed.
> You can never depend on future licensing constraints for corporate
> products either.
>
>
>
>>
>>> If anyone decided to use GPLv3, then it's their narrowly interested
>>> morality
>>> at question, not that of the FSF.
>>>
>>
>> Before GPL3, using OSS didn't involve signing on to any morals clause --
>> it was strictly business.
>
> It still is GPL v3 preserves the contract between the licensor and the
> licensee from the intervention of a third party.

This is truly gibberish. I have no idea what you're on about here, and I
suspect that even you're not sure ;) Nice try though.
sam
2007-07-31 23:42:35 UTC
Permalink
impossible wrote:
> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46afac87$***@clear.net.nz...
>> impossible wrote:

>>>>
>>> Yeah, right. What else would you be wanting to hack the TiVo code to do?
>> To use in Australia and New Zealand with a different EPG is one example
>> Its not illegal, TiVo just don't want it to be possible because their US
>> subscription business is based on dependency on their EPG
>>
>
> EPG is a patented tehnology, and the license fee is paid for by the
> manufacturer. What gives you the right to fiddle with it?
>

What stops you ? You have every right, its your tivo, you are not using
their EPG, there isn't one in your market, so you would like to enter
your own information.

Outside the US we get fucked over by all sorts of TPMs and differential
pricing schemes that are made to suit the bulk of their domestic market.
There is no good reason to indulge in post hoc justification for the
unintended consequences that we have imposed on us
impossible
2007-08-01 00:14:55 UTC
Permalink
"sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:46afc8ea$***@clear.net.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>> news:46afac87$***@clear.net.nz...
>>> impossible wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, right. What else would you be wanting to hack the TiVo code to
>>>> do?
>>> To use in Australia and New Zealand with a different EPG is one example
>>> Its not illegal, TiVo just don't want it to be possible because their US
>>> subscription business is based on dependency on their EPG
>>>
>>
>> EPG is a patented tehnology, and the license fee is paid for by the
>> manufacturer. What gives you the right to fiddle with it?
>>
>
> What stops you ? You have every right, its your tivo, you are not using
> their EPG, there isn't one in your market, so you would like to enter your
> own information.
>

Then build your own device to do that.

> Outside the US we get fucked over by all sorts of TPMs and differential
> pricing schemes that are made to suit the bulk of their domestic market.

True.

> There is no good reason to indulge in post hoc justification for the
> unintended consequences that we have imposed on us

The consequences are intended, I assure you. But exacting your revenge by
violating IP rights is dead end. In the long run, you cannot win that war
unless you become an inventor yourself.
peterwn
2007-07-28 08:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Mickey Mouse wrote:
> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>
>> So what does a TiVo user do ?
>
> I think you will find that TiVo (like Linspire) included fully licensed
> codecs with their packages.
>
> TiVo is one of the targeted victims of GPLv3 as I understand.

I would not call TiVo a victim. TiVo was lucky to be able to exploit a
loophole (rather like a sharp taxpayer exploiting a IRD loophole) and
has no one to blame when the loophole is shut. If Tivo cannot use GPLv3
without hindering its business plan, I am sure that Microsoft or another
proprietary OS company will have a product TiVo can use.
sam
2007-07-28 04:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Mickey Mouse wrote:
> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:***@clear.net.nz...
>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>> Just how do Linux users legally play MPEG2 encoded data (used in
>>> DVD's) without an accompanying licence to do so? Do they individually
>>> sign an agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make use of patented
>>> IP to ensure they aren't in breach? And just what are the
>>> implications of entering into such licensing agreements under GPLv3?
>>>
>>> http://www.mpegla.com/m2/
>>
>> Good question
>> What is the situation if you use VLC on a Windows OS instead of Linux ?
>
> Answered here:
> http://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_about_personal.2Fcommercial_usage.3F
>
>
> In commercial software packages (such as the bundled Windows DVD player,
> PowerDVD etc) the producer has arranged the licence and has paid the
> associated fee, so the user does not have to be concerned with making
> special arrangements. In the case of open source software however, the
> software producer has not licensed the software, so it becomes the users
> responsibility to ensure that they arrange such a licence by contacting
> MPEG LA (the group holder of the applicable patents) if they wish to
> make use of MPEG2 encoded data (such as DVD's).

So the issue isn't specific to Linux users.
You shills from Microsoft NZ aren't above telling a few fibs when you
are doing your anonymous trolling, are you ?
Peter
2007-07-28 03:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Mickey Mouse wrote:
> Just how do Linux users legally play MPEG2 encoded data (used in DVD's)

You should check when purchasing the media. That is, have a conversation
with the merchant at point of sale, so that it is a condition of sale that
it is ok to play the purchased material on your Linux system at home.
You'll also need to take note of any notices, licences or conditions printed
on the material (box, DVD, etc). There are usually notices prohibiting
public playing of the content.

HTH

Peter
Mickey Mouse
2007-07-28 04:10:28 UTC
Permalink
"Peter" <***@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:***@ftpsrv1...
> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>> Just how do Linux users legally play MPEG2 encoded data (used in DVD's)
>
> You should check when purchasing the media. That is, have a conversation
> with the merchant at point of sale, so that it is a condition of sale that
> it is ok to play the purchased material on your Linux system at home.
> You'll also need to take note of any notices, licences or conditions
> printed
> on the material (box, DVD, etc). There are usually notices prohibiting
> public playing of the content.

Well, I suppose you could also ask a salesperson whether a DVD writer is a
good quality model with a high level of compatibility, as you need one where
the discs will work with a large cross-section of other drives and
standalone DVD players, and make it a condition of sale that media written
with the purchased DVD writer will work on your friends computers.

I would be very interested to see just how far such an "agreement" with the
retailer will get you, if the discs you are writing for distribution are
copies of commercial DVD releases.
Malcolm
2007-07-28 04:16:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:01:15 +1200
sam <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote:

> Mickey Mouse wrote:
> > "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
> > news:***@clear.net.nz...
> >> Mickey Mouse wrote:
> >>> Just how do Linux users legally play MPEG2 encoded data (used in
> >>> DVD's) without an accompanying licence to do so? Do they
> >>> individually sign an agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make
> >>> use of patented IP to ensure they aren't in breach? And just what
> >>> are the implications of entering into such licensing agreements
> >>> under GPLv3?
> >>>
> >>> http://www.mpegla.com/m2/
> >>
> >> Good question
> >> What is the situation if you use VLC on a Windows OS instead of
> >> Linux ?
> >
> > Answered here:
> > http://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_about_personal.2Fcommercial_usage.3F
> >
> >
> > In commercial software packages (such as the bundled Windows DVD
> > player, PowerDVD etc) the producer has arranged the licence and has
> > paid the associated fee, so the user does not have to be concerned
> > with making special arrangements. In the case of open source
> > software however, the software producer has not licensed the
> > software, so it becomes the users responsibility to ensure that
> > they arrange such a licence by contacting MPEG LA (the group holder
> > of the applicable patents) if they wish to make use of MPEG2
> > encoded data (such as DVD's).
>
> So the issue isn't specific to Linux users.
> You shills from Microsoft NZ aren't ab$1.52 billionove telling a few
> fibs when you are doing your anonymous trolling, are you ?
Hi
Didn't I read in stuff.co.nz that Microsoft have to pay up $1.52 billion
for this....??

Lucent filed suit against the software vendor on March 28 in a U.S.
District Court in San Diego. The networking company, which currently is
in the process of merging with Alcatel SA, said Microsoft has violated
a patent it holds in the built-in MPEG-2 decoding capability of the
console. At issue is patent 5,227,878, "Adaptive Coding and Decoding of
Frames and Fields of Video."

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/04/14/77458_HNlucentxbox_1.html

Now as an ex Alcatel employee and still a shareholder in said
company.... where is my money... ;-)

--
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
SLED 10.0 SP1 x86_64 Kernel 2.6.16.46-0.14-smp
up 3 days 5:31, 2 users, load average: 0.06, 0.08, 0.02
Malcolm
2007-07-28 04:21:05 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:16:53 -0500
Malcolm <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:01:15 +1200
> sam <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote:
>
> > Mickey Mouse wrote:
> > > "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
> > > news:***@clear.net.nz...
> > >> Mickey Mouse wrote:
> > >>> Just how do Linux users legally play MPEG2 encoded data (used
> > >>> in DVD's) without an accompanying licence to do so? Do they
> > >>> individually sign an agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to
> > >>> make use of patented IP to ensure they aren't in breach? And
> > >>> just what are the implications of entering into such licensing
> > >>> agreements under GPLv3?
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.mpegla.com/m2/
> > >>
> > >> Good question
> > >> What is the situation if you use VLC on a Windows OS instead of
> > >> Linux ?
> > >
> > > Answered here:
> > > http://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_about_personal.2Fcommercial_usage.3F
> > >
> > >
> > > In commercial software packages (such as the bundled Windows DVD
> > > player, PowerDVD etc) the producer has arranged the licence and
> > > has paid the associated fee, so the user does not have to be
> > > concerned with making special arrangements. In the case of open
> > > source software however, the software producer has not licensed
> > > the software, so it becomes the users responsibility to ensure
> > > that they arrange such a licence by contacting MPEG LA (the group
> > > holder of the applicable patents) if they wish to make use of
> > > MPEG2 encoded data (such as DVD's).
> >
> > So the issue isn't specific to Linux users.
> > You shills from Microsoft NZ aren't ab$1.52 billionove telling a few
> > fibs when you are doing your anonymous trolling, are you ?
> Hi
> Didn't I read in stuff.co.nz that Microsoft have to pay up $1.52
> billion for this....??
>
> Lucent filed suit against the software vendor on March 28 in a U.S.
> District Court in San Diego. The networking company, which currently
> is in the process of merging with Alcatel SA, said Microsoft has
> violated a patent it holds in the built-in MPEG-2 decoding capability
> of the console. At issue is patent 5,227,878, "Adaptive Coding and
> Decoding of Frames and Fields of Video."
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/04/14/77458_HNlucentxbox_1.html
>
> Now as an ex Alcatel employee and still a shareholder in said
> company.... where is my money... ;-)
>
Oh and this one as well...sigh

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061122-8272.html

--
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
SLED 10.0 SP1 x86_64 Kernel 2.6.16.46-0.14-smp
up 3 days 5:39, 2 users, load average: 0.04, 0.08, 0.02
Mickey Mouse
2007-07-28 04:52:34 UTC
Permalink
"Malcolm" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:***@oscar-sled.homeunix.net...
>
> Didn't I read in stuff.co.nz that Microsoft have to pay up $1.52 billion
> for this....??
>
> Now as an ex Alcatel employee and still a shareholder in said
> company.... where is my money... ;-)

Well it looks like the MP3 case was overturned, so no bonus dividend sorry.

"A week after Microsoft was ordered to hand over $1.5 billion in an
Alcatel-Lucent MP3 patent dispute, a federal judge has ruled that the
Windows maker did not violate a patent at the heart of a second trial that
was set to begin soon."

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+wins+in+second+Alcatel-Lucent+patent+suit/2100-1014_3-6163828.html
sam
2007-07-28 04:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Malcolm wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:01:15 +1200
> sam <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote:
>
>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>> "sam" <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message
>>> news:***@clear.net.nz...
>>>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>>> Just how do Linux users legally play MPEG2 encoded data (used in
>>>>> DVD's) without an accompanying licence to do so? Do they
>>>>> individually sign an agreement with MPEG LA allowing them to make
>>>>> use of patented IP to ensure they aren't in breach? And just what
>>>>> are the implications of entering into such licensing agreements
>>>>> under GPLv3?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.mpegla.com/m2/
>>>> Good question
>>>> What is the situation if you use VLC on a Windows OS instead of
>>>> Linux ?
>>> Answered here:
>>> http://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_about_personal.2Fcommercial_usage.3F
>>>
>>>
>>> In commercial software packages (such as the bundled Windows DVD
>>> player, PowerDVD etc) the producer has arranged the licence and has
>>> paid the associated fee, so the user does not have to be concerned
>>> with making special arrangements. In the case of open source
>>> software however, the software producer has not licensed the
>>> software, so it becomes the users responsibility to ensure that
>>> they arrange such a licence by contacting MPEG LA (the group holder
>>> of the applicable patents) if they wish to make use of MPEG2
>>> encoded data (such as DVD's).
>> So the issue isn't specific to Linux users.
>> You shills from Microsoft NZ aren't ab$1.52 billionove telling a few
>> fibs when you are doing your anonymous trolling, are you ?
> Hi
> Didn't I read in stuff.co.nz that Microsoft have to pay up $1.52 billion
> for this....??
>
> Lucent filed suit against the software vendor on March 28 in a U.S.
> District Court in San Diego. The networking company, which currently is
> in the process of merging with Alcatel SA, said Microsoft has violated
> a patent it holds in the built-in MPEG-2 decoding capability of the
> console. At issue is patent 5,227,878, "Adaptive Coding and Decoding of
> Frames and Fields of Video."
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/04/14/77458_HNlucentxbox_1.html
>
> Now as an ex Alcatel employee and still a shareholder in said
> company.... where is my money... ;-)
>

So does this licensing organisation want me to pay $US2.50 for using VLC
on Windows ?
Because I'm ready to, Paypal, CC whatever, to not have to use the
commercial crap that came with my DVD drive.
And that includes Windows Media Player, what a load of shite that is !!
How about I pay another $2.50 for Media Player Classic ?
Get Bill on the phone Mickey ! tell him I want a $2.50 refund on the
shite bundled with XP !!
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2007-07-28 04:40:21 UTC
Permalink
In message <46aac7c3$***@clear.net.nz>, sam wrote:

> So does this licensing organisation want me to pay $US2.50 for using VLC
> on Windows ?
> Because I'm ready to, Paypal, CC whatever, to not have to use the
> commercial crap that came with my DVD drive.

Unfortunately, that won't be enough for them. They don't just want money for
the patent royalties, they also want you to sign an ironclad agreement to
ensure that nothing can happen to Hollywood's precious content without
Hollywood's agreement.
sam
2007-07-28 04:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <46aac7c3$***@clear.net.nz>, sam wrote:
>
>> So does this licensing organisation want me to pay $US2.50 for using VLC
>> on Windows ?
>> Because I'm ready to, Paypal, CC whatever, to not have to use the
>> commercial crap that came with my DVD drive.
>
> Unfortunately, that won't be enough for them. They don't just want money for
> the patent royalties, they also want you to sign an ironclad agreement to
> ensure that nothing can happen to Hollywood's precious content without
> Hollywood's agreement.

Indeed, because those licensed players enforce region lockout which is a
violation of free trade and competition law principles.
It is virtually a moral duty NOT to use them.
:-)
Gordon
2007-07-28 04:58:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:56:12 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:

> Just how do Linux users legally play MPEG2 encoded data (used in DVD's)
> without an accompanying licence to do so?

Same way MS windows people do. Use the css key that some young chap in
Norway gave to us all.
sam
2007-07-28 05:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Gordon wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:56:12 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>
>> Just how do Linux users legally play MPEG2 encoded data (used in DVD's)
>> without an accompanying licence to do so?
>
> Same way MS windows people do. Use the css key that some young chap in
> Norway gave to us all.

VLC doesn't use it.
NR
2007-07-28 11:28:15 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 28, 5:03 pm, sam <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote:
> Gordon wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:56:12 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>
> >> Just how do Linux users legally play MPEG2 encoded data (used in DVD's)
> >> without an accompanying licence to do so?
>

Frankly they probably don't, unless they use a distro that does
license mpeg2 codecs (linspire I think), but the same applies to
windows users that run vlc, or a number of other pieces of software.

> > Same way MS windows people do. Use the css key that some young chap in
> > Norway gave to us all.

Whats that got to do with mpeg2 licensing?

>
> VLC doesn't use it.

It must breach any applicable mpeg2 patents (so far as they are
applicable to NZ). However the answer to both these points is that for
all practical purposes the rules are unenforceable. None of the key
software products (ffmpeg, mplayer etc) sell anything, so they are not
profiting from their work. None of the major distros sell anything
that is in breach, or even distribute it for free. There are usually
no identifiable people to sue for any perceived breach. No one is
going to sue home users for playing DVD's on their computer.
sam
2007-07-28 22:06:46 UTC
Permalink
NR wrote:
> On Jul 28, 5:03 pm, sam <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote:
>> Gordon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:56:12 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>>>> Just how do Linux users legally play MPEG2 encoded data (used in DVD's)
>>>> without an accompanying licence to do so?
>
> Frankly they probably don't, unless they use a distro that does
> license mpeg2 codecs (linspire I think), but the same applies to
> windows users that run vlc, or a number of other pieces of software.
>
>>> Same way MS windows people do. Use the css key that some young chap in
>>> Norway gave to us all.
>
> Whats that got to do with mpeg2 licensing?
>
>> VLC doesn't use it.
>
> It must breach any applicable mpeg2 patents (so far as they are
> applicable to NZ). However the answer to both these points is that for
> all practical purposes the rules are unenforceable. None of the key
> software products (ffmpeg, mplayer etc) sell anything, so they are not
> profiting from their work. None of the major distros sell anything
> that is in breach, or even distribute it for free. There are usually
> no identifiable people to sue for any perceived breach. No one is
> going to sue home users for playing DVD's on their computer.
>

Especially considering that they already paid for maybe 2 redundant
decoders when they bought the DVD drive, if the drive has a hardware
audio output and player software. Perhaps mpeg-la could insist that
drive manufacturers bundle a linux decoder binary as well.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2007-07-29 10:28:49 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, NR wrote:

> On Jul 28, 5:03 pm, sam <***@green.eggs.ham> wrote:
>
>> VLC doesn't use it.
>
> It must breach any applicable mpeg2 patents (so far as they are
> applicable to NZ). However the answer to both these points is that for
> all practical purposes the rules are unenforceable. None of the key
> software products (ffmpeg, mplayer etc) sell anything, so they are not
> profiting from their work. None of the major distros sell anything
> that is in breach, or even distribute it for free. There are usually
> no identifiable people to sue for any perceived breach.

Yes, there are identifiable people working on FFmpeg and MPlayer. DVD Jon
didn't profit from his work, that didn't stop the MPAA etc trying to get to
him through the Norwegian courts (unsuccessfully). OK, so that was trade
secret violation, not patents.

Two points about FFmpeg and MPlayer, however:

1) They're distributing source code, not binaries. I believe under US law
source code is "protected speech", therefore not patent-infringing. For
another instance, the Freetype project includes code for interpreting
instructions for font-hinting: however, if you enable that code in your
build, then you run the risk of infringing Apple's font-hinting patents.
2) They're based in Hungary, where I don't think US patent law applies.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...