I think that the main problem that will arise of Red5 is that it will be now easy to rip broadcasts off other websites using FMS(FCS). This is a BIG PROBLEM, since MM doesn't have a DRM system. I think ripping a broadcast from a Microsoft Media Server can also be done, but with the DRM I'm not sure how easy it is to replay it from somewhere else than the domain it has been signed for. Now with Red5 it'll be easy to simply listen to a Flaschcom stream and record it, as easy as it is to listen for a Flash Player published streams.
Any other views on this issue sure would be interesting to hear of. Best Regards, Fredz./ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of hank williams Sent: October 26, 2005 10:25 AM To: Open Source Flash Mailing List Subject: Re: [osflash] Legal Considerations That Concern Us All Im sorry. this is a long thread, and some earlier things you may have missed. First of all "pretty" is just my relaxed way of speaking. I do mean, as far as US law goes, there is a decision from last year by the US court of Appeals (I forget the district) that covers just this issue. Here is an article in news.com about the decision. http://news.com.com/Judges+OK+garage+door+openers+in+copyright+case/2100-102 8_3-5341625.html Mike chambers then posted an article that he claimed was "more up to date" http://lwn.net/Articles/134642/ I responded that it was not on point with the discussion. because that was about reverse engineering software, which is to say "decompiling and studying" This is very different from stuying the output of something, particularly for the purpose of interoperability, and particularly where the protocol travels across the public airwaves or tranmission lines. Also in the US and in most of the world there are three forms of intellectual property protection: 1. Patent 2 Copyright 3.Trade secret 4. Trademark * A patent is a protection of a process. It goes something like this: First a system must do a, then it must do B then it must wait for C, etc. If MM has successfully patented the process by which it communicates using AMF or RTMP then all bets are off. But a quick (not at all thorough) search at uspto.gov did not yield any such patents. Basically, patent protect "concepts" * A Copyright is the protection of an expression of something. This could be of source code or interface art, or the notes of a song. It does not protect concepts, as a patent will. * A Trade secret can be anything that you keep secret, and take appropriate measure to keep secret through confidentiality agreements, etc. But things that are exposed publicly (like protocols) cannot be protected by trade secret except to the extent that some employee steals a book with the protocol. * Trademarks are not at all relevant to protecting software IP other than the name of the software. Basically, a protocol is a set of rules for how something should communicate. You cannot protect those rules except, potentially, by receiving a patent. You can prevent someone from copying your code for executing those rules. But so long as you execute the rules without copying the actual code that executes the rules (the expression) you are safe under the copyright section of the law. Regards Hank On 10/26/05, Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I must be one of those technical people and I am still none the wiser. > What IS the law in this case? You say it's pretty clear. I don't like the > sound of 'pretty' in this sentence. > > The spec on swf is out there already. MM isn't the only software that > produces swfs. But the case with rtmp for example appears different. > > Stefan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of hank williams > > Sent: 26 October 2005 14:35 > > To: Open Source Flash Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [osflash] Legal Considerations That Concern Us All > > > > > As previous discussed, the aim is to work /with/ Macromedia - not > > > against them. I think you are being a little aggressive. It's not a > > > case of allowing Macromedia to dictate law .. wow what an extreme > > > viewpoint .. it's a case of allowing Macromedia to define the future of > > > their own products without us throwing unnecessary spanners in the > > machine! > > > > > > > Throwing "unnecessary spanners in the machine" is to some extent what > > the "victims" of open source often feel is happening. I am sure > > microsoft feels linux is "unnecessary." > > > > I would agree with a more conciliatory tone, were it not for the fact > > that Mike Chambers comments and legal reference are totally unfounded. > > It is clear he is not versed in the law on this subject, and I doubt > > he has contacted internal MM counsel on his references and statement. > > By making wrong statements here that dampen enthusiasm or create fear, > > whether purposefully or not, he is engaging in Macromedia FUD. > > > > Personally, I dont think this can be stood for. I think people, and > > companies, should stand up for what they believe in and play it > > totally straight. Mr Chambers is either not playing it straight, or he > > is not fully knowledgeable. Either way, it is problematic for people > > who are primarily technical on this list and are perhaps more > > succeptible to the big bad wolf warning them to hear such uninformed > > messages. > > > > Regards > > Hank > > > > _______________________________________________ > > osflash mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > _______________________________________________ > osflash mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
