On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 12:49 -0700, David Boles wrote: > on 7/6/2007 11:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > > David Boles wrote: > > > >> When you buy the DVD player and hook it up to your TV maybe? The > >> manufacturer has paid a license fee to use the codecs when he built the > >> DVD player to sell to you. > > > > So it's once per device? Once per user? Once per piece of software on > > the device? Per user times devices? Per user times devices times > > possible copies of software that might access the device? > > It reads that way to me. Have you ever read a EULA? That's pretty much > what they say. > > >> Or when you *buy* the software to view the DVD on your computer that works > >> because the company that *sold* you the software paid a license fee to do > >> that. > > > > Most computer DVD players also include software to play movies, > > presumably with a paid license for all relevant patents. > > If it will 'works' they paid the fee to use whatever it needs to work. > > >> I do not recall any DVD bragging about you being able to watch it on your > >> computer when using Linux as your OS? > > > > Why is the OS any more relevant than the brand of the TV and receiver > > you might hook to a player? The patent covers the process of decoding, > > nothing else. In particular, why is it any of the patent holders > > business when he has already been paid for the license? > > I would think that if you owned a piece of Windows or Mac software that if > you read the EULA carefully it says that you can use the software as > provided. That you can not sell or even give it away if you still have it. > The only time that they really don't seem to care is when it is old and > outdated. > > >> Can you watch it on your computer in > >> Windows or MAC OSX? Sure. When using Windows, or MAC, software with a paid > >> license for the codecs. > >> > >> And the license that you are referring to belongs with the software that > >> you can not use. Which they see, as do you apparently, is of your own > >> choosing to not use. > > > > But patents aren't tied to copies, they cover processes. > > We're talking copyrights here I think. Not lawyer here - but the codecs > and 'good stuff' available for download from the 'third party sites' are > copyright and license covered. I do *not* know if they are considered > stolen but I can tell I bet that is a really illegal thing to do. As I > read it Fedora, the people that produce the product, could be in big > trouble for even mentioning them. > > >> This is a round-robin argument. The people that own the codecs are not > >> going to give them away. > > > > Right, and I've paid for the right to use them. > > You paid for the right to use 'them' with the software that they came from > not with some other software. You *never* actually own the software. You > just pay to use it. That's why you can't give it away. It is never really > yours. > > > The people that provide Fedora to you, and me, > >> are not going to pay for the license, which I would think would be per DVD > >> ISO downloaded/sold/given away and for each and every piece of software > >> that could use it, and then *give* it to you for free. Nor do they want to > >> on policy and principal. > >> > >> In other words? I don't ever see it happening until the codecs are FOSS. > >> And I seriously doubt that will ever happen. > > > > I'm not implying that they are free, I'm saying that paying for the > > right to use a patented process should give you the right to use that > > patented process even if the software version delivered to you isn't the > > exact copy that you use. > > Again. You paid for th right to use the provided software the way it was > provided. When you d/l codecs from another source, that does not own them, > it is like stealing. > > >> I get paid for the work that I perform and my company gets paid for what I > >> do. I guess that they would like the same. > > > > Do you charge for services you aren't providing at all? This is the > > case for the patent fees included in bundled software you don't or can't > > use. > > Only if I buy something with bundled software just as you described. It is > included in the price of the hardware. > > They provided them. Pick up the CD and hold it. It's there, the service, > is in your hand. It is *you* that choses not to use it. You don't use it > because you don't want to use it or you can't use because it your system, > again by your choice, is not what it is written for to start. That is not > their fault. It is your problem. > > Are you old enough to remember the Commodore 64? Atari, I think it was > them, used to offer games and in the box there would be a version for > Commodore 64, and a Atari version, and an Apple version. Do you supposed > that they only charged for one and gave the other two away? > > You said you use a Mac so you might not 'see' this. When I buy, say a new > DVD R/W for my PC it comes in a box and more than likely in that box will > be a version of NERO for burning disks. I happen to have one of those NERO > CDs. It says right on the front that this program will only work with > *this* device. > > A EULA -asically what is says is that they still own the software and you > can use as intended, since you paid to use it, but that you can not change > it in anyway. If you want to give away you have to remove it from your > computer before you hand away the CD. As a matter of fact it also says one > install on one computer for one copy. Want it installed on two computers? > You have to buy another copy. > > If you would like to see this as an example, with your permission, I will > email it to you. Since the EULA is somewhat large I would not think that > it should be list traffic. It is a little over 14K and some here have limits. > -- The EULA doesn't apply until I use the software. If I cannot use it, the EULA does not apply, because I am not an end user, and not licensed according to that document. If I then copy the software, the base laws still apply, but the EULA doesnot. Some folks tried setting it up so you had agreed by opening the package. Not valid in most states. I am not sure about CA. Nor am I sure about other countries. Copy rights are certainly honored world wide, at least in verbiage, but patents for software are not. Nor should they. Software is but and expression of a concept. It does not embody that concept in any concrete manner at all, unless it is implemented as frimware, but then the pattern of bits encoded on the firmware is patentable, because it is a physical embodiement. However, if a ROM is deisgned as row access vs column access, or serial access or nibble vs byte or word, then patent laws have had some deficiencies, and this is still being wrangled out in courts world wide. Personally I am against software patents. I think it sets the wrong standard, and even the evolution of algorithms is endangered by the practice. I think the US is beginning to see the light on this as well, but it will take some real wrangling in various courts before it all comes to a head. Regards, Les H
