Re: Intention to package: FreeAMP
> I was under the impression that due to legal complications it was
> impossible to write a totally free MPEG player? I'm sort of in
Ok, I need some clarifcation here... Isn't MPEG a
standards/format group? Wasn't MPEG layer 3 designed BY mpeg?
If this is the case, how is it legal for someone to patent an algorhythm
that it requires? Was the algorythm patented beforehand?
I think that algorhythmic patents are almost as bad as interface
copyrights, first off.
Second of all, a good lawyer (Whose services are GPL? ;>) can make
ANYTHING legal.
The big companies/patentholders just count on no contest of their claim,
while contesting others' claims. It's the power of legal monies.
As a side example: www.olga.(net|com|org) distributes guitar tablature for
many popular songs. The music industry all pretty much falls under one big
umbrella, anyway... but I digress..
The HFA (Harry Fox Agency) (The legal militia for the National Music
Publishers Association (Which owns the rights to most of the music played
on radio stations today)) has shut olga down, claiming copyright
infringement.
However, you wouldn't see a book publisher shutting down a public library,
would you?
There is a clause in the copyright laws: Fair use.
IF the olga had the money to stand up to the HFA in court, they could
claim fair use, since they make no money off of their services. They could
win, almost certainly.
The HFA counts on them rolling over, and they very likely will, since they
don't have thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars to mount a legal
defense.
Ok, I've rambled and digressed enormously here ... so let me summarize.
* Most of the holders of algorythmic patents (PGP, LZW, GIF, (MP3??), and
many other encoding formats) are big companies who count on no contestment
of their claim (Which I see as wrongful - You shouldn't be able to patent
a method of doing something. Otherwise, only one company would own the
patent to the internal combustion engine, and that would be bad.)
* The encoding used in MP3 encoding/decoding may not be secondarily
patentable.
* The copyright laws should be MEMORIZED. I've read most of the pertinent
sections. Have you?
* If someone comes after Debian with a legal claim, can Debian mount a
defense of any sort?
* Should Debian have a list of lawyers who would be interested in taking
a `public intrest' case?
* Am I waaay off base? ;>
Also, there is a clause that many licenses miss, and I think that many
licenses should be rewritten with the clause added -- Interpretation.
An interpretation clause is VERY important, because with one, you can
pretty much say `If you don't think this means what I think it means, I'm
right. I'm the final authority as to the interpretation of this license'..
Otherwise, breeches of the license can be argued by a good lawyer on
interpretation.
*WHEW*
-Kysh <Not A Lawyer, by the gods>
PS. Flames to nulldev@dragonfyre.soark.net ;>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: