1 |
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 07:23:52AM +0200, Tony Clark (tclark@×××××.com) wrote: |
2 |
> These are 2 different things. |
3 |
> 1. Copywrite has been claimed. |
4 |
> 2. The copywrite holder has the right to determine if and how any |
5 |
> reproduction can be made. |
6 |
> No argument with either of these, except where an included license conflicted |
7 |
> with other laws of the land in question. In Australia you can region code a |
8 |
> DVD all you want but I believe now, you are not allowed to sell a dvd player |
9 |
> that supports region coding. Australia's fair use laws override parts of the |
10 |
> license pertaining to region coding thus rendering region coding illegal in |
11 |
> priciple there. Australia is a member of both bodies you mentioned below. |
12 |
|
13 |
Region coding is not covered by any WIPO treaties or conventions which |
14 |
Australia is a signatory to. |
15 |
|
16 |
A quick search did not reveal any news articles supporting your view |
17 |
that region coding is currently illegal in Australia, only that it's |
18 |
being (or was) investigated by the ACCC as a possible violation of the |
19 |
Trade Practices Act (not fair use laws): |
20 |
|
21 |
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-03-28-002-04-PS-CY |
22 |
|
23 |
Anyway, how is this relevant to the win32 codecs distribution issue? |
24 |
|
25 |
> Both the WIPO and Berne convention leave a number of things to be determined |
26 |
> by members. eg "Mod chips" can be sold, purchased and used legally in |
27 |
> Australia, in the USA and UK selling such devices is illegal. In the USA |
28 |
> using such a device is illegal. Don't know about the UK. |
29 |
|
30 |
Mod chips are not covered by any WIPO treaties or conventions which |
31 |
Australia is a signatory to. Circumvention devices are covered by the |
32 |
WIPO Copyright Treaty. WCT is the basis for EUCD, which the UK has not |
33 |
yet implemented: |
34 |
|
35 |
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/notices/copy_direct2.htm |
36 |
|
37 |
The law applied in Sony v. Channel Technology was Copyright, Designs and |
38 |
Patents Act 1988. |
39 |
|
40 |
I don't see how this is relevant either. |
41 |
|
42 |
> I had a quick read of the Berne Convention and I didn't notice anything that |
43 |
> supports your view on "Requiring copywrite..." I didn't read it all, just |
44 |
> the articals that I thought may include such a statement, so could you point |
45 |
> me to the relevant artical. |
46 |
|
47 |
Article 5(2). |
48 |
|
49 |
> > How about a "css" USE keyword for closed source software? |
50 |
> Why? It doesn't address anything technical, just a personal perference maybe. |
51 |
Doesn't address anything technical? We'll have to agree to disagree on this |
52 |
one. |
53 |
|
54 |
> I do know where your coming from and you have my support on that issue. I |
55 |
> believe where legal areas are grey, it's better to not to emphesise them by |
56 |
> bringing special notice to the fact they are grey. This only makes people |
57 |
> want to seek black or white clarification which is nice if it concludes that |
58 |
> what your doing is ok but hell and undefendable if it isn't. |
59 |
|
60 |
I haven't pointed out any grey areas. What are you talking about? |
61 |
|
62 |
The legal issue at hand is very simple: |
63 |
|
64 |
The mplayer project (and Gentoo mirrors) is distributing win32 codecs |
65 |
which are copyrighted by Microsoft, Apple and others. Which license |
66 |
agreements permit this distribution? |
67 |
|
68 |
-- |
69 |
Jon Lech Johansen |
70 |
jon@××××××××××.org |
71 |
nanocrew.net/blog/ |
72 |
|
73 |
Stat sua cuique dies, breve et inreparabile tempus |
74 |
omnibus est vitae; sed famam extendere factis, |
75 |
hoc virtutis opus. |
76 |
|
77 |
-- |
78 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |