On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 07:23:52AM +0200, Tony Clark (tclark@...) wrote:
> These are 2 different things.
> 1. Copywrite has been claimed.
> 2. The copywrite holder has the right to determine if and how any
> reproduction can be made.
> No argument with either of these, except where an included license conflicted
> with other laws of the land in question. In Australia you can region code a
> DVD all you want but I believe now, you are not allowed to sell a dvd player
> that supports region coding. Australia's fair use laws override parts of the
> license pertaining to region coding thus rendering region coding illegal in
> priciple there. Australia is a member of both bodies you mentioned below.
Region coding is not covered by any WIPO treaties or conventions which
Australia is a signatory to.
A quick search did not reveal any news articles supporting your view
that region coding is currently illegal in Australia, only that it's
being (or was) investigated by the ACCC as a possible violation of the
Trade Practices Act (not fair use laws):
Anyway, how is this relevant to the win32 codecs distribution issue?
> Both the WIPO and Berne convention leave a number of things to be determined
> by members. eg "Mod chips" can be sold, purchased and used legally in
> Australia, in the USA and UK selling such devices is illegal. In the USA
> using such a device is illegal. Don't know about the UK.
Mod chips are not covered by any WIPO treaties or conventions which
Australia is a signatory to. Circumvention devices are covered by the
WIPO Copyright Treaty. WCT is the basis for EUCD, which the UK has not
The law applied in Sony v. Channel Technology was Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
I don't see how this is relevant either.
> I had a quick read of the Berne Convention and I didn't notice anything that
> supports your view on "Requiring copywrite..." I didn't read it all, just
> the articals that I thought may include such a statement, so could you point
> me to the relevant artical.
> > How about a "css" USE keyword for closed source software?
> Why? It doesn't address anything technical, just a personal perference maybe.
Doesn't address anything technical? We'll have to agree to disagree on this
> I do know where your coming from and you have my support on that issue. I
> believe where legal areas are grey, it's better to not to emphesise them by
> bringing special notice to the fact they are grey. This only makes people
> want to seek black or white clarification which is nice if it concludes that
> what your doing is ok but hell and undefendable if it isn't.
I haven't pointed out any grey areas. What are you talking about?
The legal issue at hand is very simple:
The mplayer project (and Gentoo mirrors) is distributing win32 codecs
which are copyrighted by Microsoft, Apple and others. Which license
agreements permit this distribution?
Jon Lech Johansen
Stat sua cuique dies, breve et inreparabile tempus
omnibus est vitae; sed famam extendere factis,
hoc virtutis opus.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list