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): 

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-03-28-002-04-PS-CY

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
yet implemented:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/notices/copy_direct2.htm 

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.

Article 5(2).

> > 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
one. 

> 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
jon@...
nanocrew.net/blog/

Stat sua cuique dies, breve et inreparabile tempus
omnibus est vitae; sed famam extendere factis,
hoc virtutis opus.

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list