RE: [tlug] Re: [CoLoCo] RESPECT MICROSOFT

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

burlingk@example.com writes:

 > From a purely moral standpoint, I personally feel that
 > watching DVD's under whatever platform is a Fair Use
 > matter, as long as you have a legal copy of the DVD.
 > I wish the courts still felt that way.  :/

It's not "fair use".  You have a license.  If you write your own
software and produce the receipt for the DVD in court, you will be
untouchable under copyright law.

The problem is that the DRM is *patented* and protected by the DMCA.
Patent law doesn't make exceptions for devices constructed solely for
the purpose of licensed or fair use of other products.  You must have
a patent license if the decoding device is patented.  (Usually
decoders cannot be patented, however.)  Second, it is illegal to
distribute[1] circumvention devices at all, and illegal to make them
except to engage in licensed or fair use activity.

The main reason this is important is that libraries care a lot about
their fair use rights.  They're a natural ally here.

 > I wonder how hard it would be to start a fund geared
 > specifically towards raising the money for licensing
 > of a DVD player program.

Hard.  The problem is that the relevant patents, although they
probably have "fair and nondiscriminatory" licensing terms, will be
*royalty* based, ie, pay the FAND royalty for every copy that your
clients make.  This automatically means it cannot be distributed under
GPLv3, and probably not GPLv2 either, unless the fund can come to
terms with the licensor about how many copies this means, *and* pay
for all the free riders.



Footnotes: 
[1]  Here "distribute" is used loosely; it also includes engaging in
business so that you may not set up as a consultant for fair use
circumvention.