| Matthew Rosewarne on 4 Jan 2007 15:05:12 -0000 |
|
On Thursday 04 January 2007 08:20, Toby DiPasquale wrote: > Are you a lawyer? If not, have you consulted with a lawyer on any of these > statements? You sure seem to be able to know what's legal and what's not. No, I'm not a lawyer, so do consider this a word of warning and not a legal consultation. I have, however, read a great deal into the legal ramifications of some of the more... interesting pieces of legislation coming out of our wonderful government and the court cases that happen as a result. The plain fact is (and remember, do consult an actual lawyer if you want iron-clad legal advice) that this country does have in its body of law both software patents and a ban on DRM anti-circumvention measures. AAC/M4A, like MP3, is a quagmire of patents held by all sorts of people, from Apple to various members of MPEG to who knows who else. In general, there are bound to be more people who have patents in it, since it's nearly impossible to write any software that doesn't violate scores of patents nowadays. AT&T for one has been trying to use their mpeg-related patent portfolio as a blunt instrument against various people writing implementations, such as Apple. Now unlike MP3, M4A (or for the technical, MPEG-4 Part 14) does not have a patent licensing requirement for end users, just developers, but the distinction is unclear (probably intentionally so). A list of patents from the MPEG LA http://www.mpegla.com/m4s/m4s-att1.pdf Via's FAQ on the topic: http://www.vialicensing.com/Licensing/MPEG4_FAQ.cfm?faq=1#1 As for "Jhymn" and it's parent "hymn", I'm mistaken about them. They apparently stopped working as of iTunes 6, but there are other pieces of software that do work (or so I'm told), QTFairUse and myFairTunes, both for Windows only. Legally, they are in the same boat as hymn, as they almost certainly (again, consult a lawyer) fall under the definition of "anti-circumvention device" as in the DMCA. Now, what does all this mean? Well, I don't know and I'm not sure if anyone else does either, since the whole area is a legal grey area, if a fairly dark grey one. As far as I know, no linux user has even been sued over possession or use of anything like this, such as DeCSS or any other software. I don't believe any individual linux user has even been sued for patent infringement either. Chances are, if you aren't using this in a business setting, and in reality it would have to be a fairly large business to get on the radar, you probably won't ever have to worry about being liable. It would be best for you and pretty much everyone else, however, if you (or more precisely, y'all) read up on the topic and spoke out about it to... well anyone, but your various government representatives in particular. And I can't beat this dead horse enough, but do consult a lawyer if you really need some kind of actual legal advice on the topic. If you're interested in this topic, it would be worth your time to make it to Richard Stallman's upcoming presentation at Drexel, which was announced earlier on the list. Attachment:
pgphLmqN1liGh.pgp ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|