Software freedom threat

Matth · Mar 26, 2003, 01:40 PM

Copied from another forum...
I would add that the guy plays it ABSOLUTELY FAIR

"There is no illegal software in this site. All binaries here hosted are either public domain, or have been granted permission to host them by their authors.
That said, visitors should be aware that download and usage of some binaries (namely, MP3 encoders and AAC encoders/decoders) may be forbidden due to patent legislation in their Countries. Consult your Country's software patent laws for more details. "

- Please join in complaining to aacla@dolby.com about this groundless harrassment (unless Brazil have suddenly granted the relevant patents)

Dolby labs, AAC and trademarks
This is an email from Dolby Labs to Roberto J. Amorim, webmaster of the magnificent site rarewares: http://www.inf.ufpr.br/~rja00/

Mr. Roberto Amorim
RareWares
rja00@inf.ufpr.br

RE: Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) Technology

I am writing to inform you that Dolby is the licensing administrator
for the new compression technology called AAC. We have searched your
web site at www.inf.ufpr.br/~rja00/ and discovered you are offering
unlicensed AAC software. This unlicensed software infringes patent
rights belonging to AT&T Laboratories (of Florham Park, New Jersey),
Dolby Laboratories (of San Francisco, California), Fraunhofer
Insititute (of Munich, Germany), and Sony Corporation (of Tokyo,
Japan). These companies take the unlicensed use of their technology
very seriously, and are presently in the process of communicating
with each of your software developers. Our goal is to provide them
inexpensive licensing arrangements so that they can continue to
utilize AAC technology. At present, however, none of your software
is licensed to use AAC. This illegal distribution is generating
liability.

Accordingly, please remove all software from your website regarding
AAC technology. We want to thank you very much for your cooperation
in this matter, and we apologize for the inconvenience caused. We'd
appreciate a brief email or call from you confirming your removal of
the files. We will promptly let you know when your hosted software
become licensed so that you can re-instate the files if you still
desire to do so.

Should have you have questions please feel free to contact me at
415-558-0792 or aacla@dolby.com.

Sincerely,

Christina L. Bonner
Dolby Laboratiories Licensing Corporation

Now, just consider the fact that both faac and the decoder (faad) are FREEWARE/OPENSOURCE, and judge by yourself.
IMO Roberto would normally tell the guys to go get a clean shave, but it's not to his style, so I'm afraid that rarewares may ggo ddown for a while.
If you don't mind, please email Dolby Labs and tell them to STOP this bullshit ASAP.

Vampyromaniac · Mar 26, 2003, 11:42 PM

As far as I understand, Dolby's complaint is not that Roberto is providing access to copyrighted software (as you said the software is freeware or open-source), but rather that the software he's providing access to uses copyrighted technology (AAC.)

The more direct complaint would be for Dolby to contact the actual authors of the software, and complain that they are using AAC technology without paying for it (a complaint they may or may not have made already.) But they seem to be contacting Roberto to stop access to the offending software, to respect Dolby's part in developing the AAC technology.

It is fully in Dolby's rights to make such a request. As for whether or not Roberto is actually liable, I'm not sure whether a precedent has been set in such a case. The closest matter that comes to mind is the case with DeCSS, but that was a case where software circumvented copyright-protections, not a case where software used un-licensed technology. Of course, in the DeCSS case, the court did order the software to be removed from all websites (I think,) most notably 2600.

ToshiroOC · Mar 26, 2003, 11:46 PM

The court ordered an injunction against distribution of the DeCSS binaries, if I recall, not that the software be removed on a permanent basis. The Electronic Frontier Foundation had a lot of the legal information on that case, if you are interested.

Vampyromaniac · Mar 27, 2003, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
The court ordered an injunction against distribution of the DeCSS binaries,

yeah, that's what I meant

to be removed from downloading

ToshiroOC · Mar 27, 2003, 07:46 AM

I used fancier words than you, so ha!

Matth · Mar 27, 2003, 01:12 PM

They quote PATENT rights and licencing, not copyright.

In the case of MP3, it has more or less settled down that:

Fraunhofer / Thompson etc. hold relevant patents in SOME countries (those where software IS consdered to be patentable), and it is illegal to host/distribute binaries of LAME or BLADENC in those countries.

In countries where the patent is NOT granted, they cannot claim any patent rights.

ToshiroOC · Mar 27, 2003, 01:40 PM

There was a precedent set for legal cases in the United States or Australia, where a judge in one country ordered a website in another country shut down for breaking a law in the judge's country - if I see a link to that case again, I'll pass it on - interesting stuff.

Vampyromaniac · Mar 28, 2003, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matth
They quote PATENT rights and licencing, not copyright.

Yes, that's what I said . . . .

Quote:

In countries where the patent is NOT granted, they cannot claim any patent rights.

Ahh, I dunno about international issues

Mar 26, 2003, 01:40 PM	#1
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	Software freedom threat Copied from another forum... I would add that the guy plays it ABSOLUTELY FAIR "There is no illegal software in this site. All binaries here hosted are either public domain, or have been granted permission to host them by their authors. That said, visitors should be aware that download and usage of some binaries (namely, MP3 encoders and AAC encoders/decoders) may be forbidden due to patent legislation in their Countries. Consult your Country's software patent laws for more details. " - Please join in complaining to aacla@dolby.com about this groundless harrassment (unless Brazil have suddenly granted the relevant patents) Dolby labs, AAC and trademarks This is an email from Dolby Labs to Roberto J. Amorim, webmaster of the magnificent site rarewares: http://www.inf.ufpr.br/~rja00/ Mr. Roberto Amorim RareWares rja00@inf.ufpr.br RE: Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) Technology I am writing to inform you that Dolby is the licensing administrator for the new compression technology called AAC. We have searched your web site at www.inf.ufpr.br/~rja00/ and discovered you are offering unlicensed AAC software. This unlicensed software infringes patent rights belonging to AT&T Laboratories (of Florham Park, New Jersey), Dolby Laboratories (of San Francisco, California), Fraunhofer Insititute (of Munich, Germany), and Sony Corporation (of Tokyo, Japan). These companies take the unlicensed use of their technology very seriously, and are presently in the process of communicating with each of your software developers. Our goal is to provide them inexpensive licensing arrangements so that they can continue to utilize AAC technology. At present, however, none of your software is licensed to use AAC. This illegal distribution is generating liability. Accordingly, please remove all software from your website regarding AAC technology. We want to thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter, and we apologize for the inconvenience caused. We'd appreciate a brief email or call from you confirming your removal of the files. We will promptly let you know when your hosted software become licensed so that you can re-instate the files if you still desire to do so. Should have you have questions please feel free to contact me at 415-558-0792 or aacla@dolby.com. Sincerely, Christina L. Bonner Dolby Laboratiories Licensing Corporation Now, just consider the fact that both faac and the decoder (faad) are FREEWARE/OPENSOURCE, and judge by yourself. IMO Roberto would normally tell the guys to go get a clean shave, but it's not to his style, so I'm afraid that rarewares may ggo ddown for a while. If you don't mind, please email Dolby Labs and tell them to STOP this bullshit ASAP.

Mar 26, 2003, 11:42 PM	#2
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	As far as I understand, Dolby's complaint is not that Roberto is providing access to copyrighted software (as you said the software is freeware or open-source), but rather that the software he's providing access to uses copyrighted technology (AAC.) The more direct complaint would be for Dolby to contact the actual authors of the software, and complain that they are using AAC technology without paying for it (a complaint they may or may not have made already.) But they seem to be contacting Roberto to stop access to the offending software, to respect Dolby's part in developing the AAC technology. It is fully in Dolby's rights to make such a request. As for whether or not Roberto is actually liable, I'm not sure whether a precedent has been set in such a case. The closest matter that comes to mind is the case with DeCSS, but that was a case where software circumvented copyright-protections, not a case where software used un-licensed technology. Of course, in the DeCSS case, the court did order the software to be removed from all websites (I think,) most notably 2600. __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250 Last edited by Vampyromaniac; Mar 27, 2003 at 01:06 AM.

Mar 26, 2003, 11:46 PM	#3
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	The court ordered an injunction against distribution of the DeCSS binaries, if I recall, not that the software be removed on a permanent basis. The Electronic Frontier Foundation had a lot of the legal information on that case, if you are interested. __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Mar 27, 2003, 07:46 AM	#5
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	I used fancier words than you, so ha! __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Mar 27, 2003, 01:40 PM	#7
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	There was a precedent set for legal cases in the United States or Australia, where a judge in one country ordered a website in another country shut down for breaking a law in the judge's country - if I see a link to that case again, I'll pass it on - interesting stuff. __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Mar 27, 2003, 01:12 PM	Thread Starter #6
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	They quote PATENT rights and licencing, not copyright. In the case of MP3, it has more or less settled down that: Fraunhofer / Thompson etc. hold relevant patents in SOME countries (those where software IS consdered to be patentable), and it is illegal to host/distribute binaries of LAME or BLADENC in those countries. In countries where the patent is NOT granted, they cannot claim any patent rights.