A question on legality

G

George Skandalidis

Over the past couple of months, I have seen regulars recommend
software like the Coda codec pack or Real/Quicktime Alternative
codecs. I was under the impression that there is flagrant copyright
infringement in these packages, as they seem to redistribute codecs
from commercial products without permission.
This is not the software police and I don't care what anybody uses,
nor is this an invitation to a flame war about general views on all
freeware matters. Is it not a bit misleading though, to present as
freeware, software that has piracy written all over it? Or am I wrong
in the examples I cited?
 
H

Helen

George Skandalidis said:
Over the past couple of months, I have seen regulars recommend
software like the Coda codec pack or Real/Quicktime Alternative
codecs. I was under the impression that there is flagrant copyright
infringement in these packages, as they seem to redistribute codecs
from commercial products without permission.
This is not the software police and I don't care what anybody uses,
nor is this an invitation to a flame war about general views on all
freeware matters. Is it not a bit misleading though, to present as
freeware, software that has piracy written all over it? Or am I wrong
in the examples I cited?

Legal advice is from attorneys who are paid BIG TIME. Perhaps
you are seeking something FREE?

BTW are you familiar with the legality called FAIR USE?
Just wondering.
 
H

Helen

George Skandalidis said:
Could you explain how the software mentioned above promotes fair use?


FIRST I apologize to any for whom HTML appears.... no harm is intended.

A. What Is Fair Use?


In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for
a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a
copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.
Another way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against infringement. If
your use qualifies under the definition above, and as defined more specifically later
in this chapter, then your use would not be considered an illegal infringement.
So what is a "transformative" use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be
aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what
qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and
varying court decisions. That's because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair
use exception did not want to limit the definition of fair use. They wanted it--like
free speech--to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.
Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism; or parody.
1. Comment and Criticism
If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a
book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve
your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:
quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a
lesson, or
copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court
case.
The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review,
which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples
of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases in Section
C.
2. Parody
A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in
a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the
original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use
of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original.





If you are in Greece, then this for you is N/A, nonetheless for those in the USA
where a spammer recently received a 9 year prison sentence, here is some info
for you: Escerpt from Chapter 9

Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to
freely use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of commentary and criticism.
For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote
a portion of the novelist's work without asking permission. Absent this freedom,
copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about their work.
Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use interpretation, the
dispute will have to be resolved by courts or arbitration. If it's not a fair use,
then you are infringing upon the rights of the copyright owner and may be liable for
damages.
The only guidance is provided by a set of fair use factors outlined in the copyright
law. These factors are weighed in each case to determine whether a use qualifies as a
fair use. For example, one important factor is whether your use will deprive the
copyright owner of income. Unfortunately, weighing the fair use factors is often quite
subjective. For this reason, the fair use road map is often tricky to navigate.
This chapter explains the various rules behind the fair use principle. To help you get
a feel for which uses courts consider to be fair uses and which ones they don't, we
provide several examples of fair use lawsuits at the end of this chapter.
For educational fair use guidelines, see Chapter 7, which deals with academic
permissions.
What Is Fair Use?
Comment and Criticism
Parody
Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors
The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use
The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken
The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market
The "Fifth" Fair Use Factor: Are You Good or Bad?
Summaries of Fair Use Cases
Cases Involving Text
Artwork and Audiovisual Cases
Internet Cases
Music Cases
Summaries of Parody Cases
Disagreements Over Fair Use: When Are You Likely to Get Sued?
 
E

elaich

For example, one important factor is whether your use will deprive the
copyright owner of income.

Since Quicktime and Real are both free programs, I'd like to see anybody
prove that using their codecs to power alternatives are depriving them of
income.
 
D

dkg_ctc

FIRST I apologize to any for whom HTML appears.... no harm is
intended.

A. What Is Fair Use?


In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of
copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative"
purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted
work.
*snip*

Wow...you can copy and paste...very impressive. Now, to show us that
you actually understand what you've copied and pasted (it's already
fairly obvious that you DON'T, but I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt), explain how Quicktime Alternative/Real Alternative fall under
the categories of "commenting upon", "criticizing", or "parody".

As a side note, I can't help but note how ironic it is that in a
discussion of fair use you've decided to copy and paste the contents
of two pages from Stanford's page on Copyright and Fair Use without
attribution. I suppose, in your mind, that falls under fair use as
well.
 
D

dkg_ctc

Over the past couple of months, I have seen regulars recommend
software like the Coda codec pack or Real/Quicktime Alternative
codecs. I was under the impression that there is flagrant
copyright infringement in these packages, as they seem to
redistribute codecs from commercial products without permission.
This is not the software police and I don't care what anybody
uses, nor is this an invitation to a flame war about general views
on all freeware matters. Is it not a bit misleading though, to
present as freeware, software that has piracy written all over it?
Or am I wrong in the examples I cited?

No, you are not wrong. K-Lite Codec Pack contains DivX Pro, 3ivx Pro,
and numerous commercial DVD decoders as well as the Real/Quicktime
codecs.

As you can see from Helen's response, however, some people tend to
think that anything short of stealing twenty bucks out of someone's
pocket is covered by fair use. Can't say I'm surprised, though...
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=

K-Lite Codec Pack contains DivX Pro, 3ivx Pro, and numerous
commercial DVD decoders as well as the Real/Quicktime codecs.

Indeed. Aside from the legal/moral issue of installing cracked
software on one's machine, there's also the issue of the K-Lite folks
doing a pretty shoddy job, throwing conflicting packages together into
their warez product.

<http://msmvps.com/chrisl/archive/2004/07/04/9546.aspx>
 
G

George Skandalidis

A. What Is Fair Use?

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for
a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a
copyrighted work.
Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to
freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.
<big snip>

So, is Coda codec pack a commentary/criticism on the Cyberlink decoder
filter? Is QT Alternative a parody on Apple? Quite an interesting
view.
If you put out a freeware program called "Helen player" am I entitled
to grabbing your dlls and producing "Helen Alternative"?
I am not interested in Apple's or Real's policies, benefits, views,
ethics etc. May they close or prosper, I don't care. Nor am I the
saint of freeware purity. I take a fairly broad definition of
freeware. However the above fall outside of it. They don't just
incorporate stolen code. They comprise fully of it.
 
H

Helen

In the USA we have a constitution that guarantees FREE speech, religion, press,
peaceable assembly and to petition congress for redress of grievances. In many other
parts of the world, probably in most, those lacking such don't understand. You cannot
strip language from a culture and comprehend. It is obvious that your mind is made
up, you have your bias and you're stuck with it. End of conversation. Besides that,
this conversation does NOT belong in this newsgroup.

Regards,
Helen
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=

In the USA we have a constitution that guarantees FREE speech,
religion, press, peaceable assembly and to petition congress for
redress of grievances.

The freedoms laid out in the US Constitution don't have anything to
do with this issue of distributing cracked commercial software. (Also,
the US Constitution does not guarantee any freedoms for the press in
particular, though of course they are entitled to the same freedoms the
rest of us are.)
In many other parts of the world, probably in most, those lacking
such don't understand.

The town I grew up in was named for a hero of the US revolution, and my
home state was the 8th admitted to the Union. I have no idea what
relevance you believe fair use has to this discussion, and AFAICT
neither do you; your refusal to even state what alleged relevance
there is cannot be the result of some cultural barrier.
Besides that, this conversation does NOT belong in this newsgroup.

Sure it belongs; it's about a pile of cracked commercial software
being passed off as freeware. If you only meant that the stuff you
posted wrt fair use does not belong, I agree.
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=

then why is it consitantly recommended in this group without
question ?

Because you see those recommendations and you don't question them?

I don't follow threads about codecs much; I didn't know it was being
recommended as freeware. Plenty of times in the past here, it has been
pointed out that K-Lite and its codec packs are warez.
what about the arcrobat reader clones ?

I'm not aware of anybody cracking Adobe products and trying to pass
them off as freeware.
 
G

George Skandalidis

In the USA we have a constitution that guarantees FREE speech, religion, press,
peaceable assembly and to petition congress for redress of grievances. In many other
parts of the world, probably in most, those lacking such don't understand. You cannot
strip language from a culture and comprehend.

Usually, resorting to national stereotypes obscures more of the truth
than it reveals. However, let me breach this rule just once to say:
An American lecturing a Greek about democracy is rich indeed! It is
also mildly offensive if one considers not only ancient history, but
much more recent political events. I am sorry that my underdeveloped
democratic sensibilities do not permit me to understand the context of
your exalted utterances.
It is obvious that your mind is made
up, you have your bias and you're stuck with it.

No, my mind is not made up. If my mind was made up, I wouldn't go
about asking questions to the group. Nor was my stance one of moral
and ethical superiority. For all I know, I may indeed use or
recommend such or worse software in the future. I just want to know
how others feel about it. Thank you for making your views clear.
End of conversation. Besides that,
this conversation does NOT belong in this newsgroup.

Pity. It was a good pastime for a sleepless night.
 
E

elaich

Sure it belongs; it's about a pile of cracked commercial software
being passed off as freeware.

Quicktime is free. RealPlayer is free. What "cracked commercial software"
are you referring to?
 
O

Onno Tasler

(ProteanThread) scribebat:
what about the arcrobat reader clones?

Adobe published the specifications for PDF and invited others to use them
-- including writing their own PDF-Reader.
 
O

Onno Tasler

elaich scribebat:
Quicktime is free. RealPlayer is free. What "cracked commercial software"
are you referring to?

Quicktime is commercial software. RealPlayer is commercial software. They
are given to consumers without charge as part of an advertisement campaign
for the respective companies other software. Where are they free?
 
S

Sparky

George said:
Over the past couple of months, I have seen regulars recommend
software like the Coda codec pack or Real/Quicktime Alternative
codecs. I was under the impression that there is flagrant copyright
infringement in these packages, as they seem to redistribute codecs
from commercial products without permission.
This is not the software police and I don't care what anybody uses,
nor is this an invitation to a flame war about general views on all
freeware matters. Is it not a bit misleading though, to present as
freeware, software that has piracy written all over it? Or am I wrong
in the examples I cited?
καλός εσπέÏα George;

I cannot respond to the Coda codec pack nor the Quicktime "alternative"
codec." However, Realplayer released their codec source for some time
of "open" development. The real codec developed by MPC is such an example.

Further, we're having a big argument right now about the difference
between "reverse engineering" and "over-the-wire reverse engineering."
See the Torvalds vs Tridgell fiasco as reported in theregister.co.uk for
example.

Sooo...no answers but two points:

1) some companies have been releasing their heretofore proprietary
technology under various "open" scenarios (ie Realplayer).

2) some companies are not committing "flagrant copyright infringement"
in that they are not reverse engineering the (proprietary) "black box,"
rather, they are reverse engineering the signals that enter and exit
said (proprietary) black box. Samba & pdfcreator are good examples of this.

hth,

-Sparky
 
O

Onno Tasler

Helen scribebat:
Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is
entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of
commentary and criticism.

Yes, here is "Fair Use" described. Where do I find the section about "you
are allowed to republish and alter any copyrighted material you stumble
about?" Nowhere, because that is exactly what copyright forbids. Fair Use
is an exception in copyright, a very small and specific one. It does not
cover this case.

Oh, and this spammer you mentioned has *nothing* to do with copyright (he
was sentenced for betrayal, identity theft and spamming), so why did you
mention him at all?
 
D

Dewey Edwards

No, you are not wrong. K-Lite Codec Pack contains DivX Pro, 3ivx Pro,
and numerous commercial DVD decoders as well as the Real/Quicktime
codecs.

I don't believe this question should be posed only as a "Fair use of
copyright material" [Helen], nor answered that way. Generally, an
expression of an idea is copyrightable, but not the idea itself.
The question should be whether a particular CODECS is copyrightable.

Mitel v. Iqtel
http://digital-law-online.info/cases/44PQ2D1172.htm
"We have extended this traditional copyright doctrine to exclude
from protection against infringement those elements of a work that
necessarily result from external factors inherent in the subject
matter of the work. For computer-related applications, these
external factors include hardware standards and mechanical
specifications, software standards and compatibility requirements,
computer manufacturer design standards, industry programming
practices, and practices and demands of the industry being
serviced.See Gates Rubber, 9F.3d at 838; Computer Assocs. Int’l,
Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 709-10 (2d Cir. 1992); Plains
Cotton Coop. Assoc. v. Goodpasture Serv., Inc., 807 F.2d 1256, 1262
1635](5th Cir. 1987) (declining to extend protection to a computer
program where the similarities between the plaintiff’s and
defendant’s programs were dictated by the externalities of the
cotton market and by other market factors); see also 4 Melville B.
Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright Section 13.03[F] [3], at
13-130-141 (1997) [hereinafter Nimmer]. Because these factors
concern functional aspects of a work, the scenes a faire doctrine
plays a particularly important role in ensuring that copyright
rewards and stimulates artistic creativity in a utilitarian work in
a manner that permits the free use and development of
non-protectable ideas and processes that make the work useful.
Computer Assocs., 982 F.2d at 711."
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top