Dax Solomon Umaming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm not a lawyer, so I'm forwarding my questions to my 3 favorite > lists. This is in regards to the Philippine Copyright Law[1]. These > are the questions directed to me, but I'm not qualified to answer > that's why I'm seeking an expert.
Barely an expert, but let me pretend to be one :D And a pseudo-libertarian at that... > 1) Are P2P applications legal? I know this is a dumb question, but I >need a professional opinion on this matter. That would be the same as asking whether Windows applications or Perl one-liners are legal, IMHO. I agree with the others here: P2P applications themselves ought to be legal for use, just like any other duly-licensed and legally-acquired application. So P2P apps under the GPL, for example, can be used freely by anyone for any purpose (remember, there's no guarantee for merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, at least for GPL apps.) > 2) Can I legally download and use software or materials that was not > registered and/or copyrighted in our country? You're using GMail, right? If so, then it ought to be obvious to you that you are downloading Google's technology, which AFAIK isn't registered with any Philippine government office; we ought to observe that its copyrighted, however... Same goes for pretty much everything many Filipinos are going gaga about (e.g. Friendster, Twitter, etc.) > 3) Regarding Fair Use, does this mean I can decompile any software for > learning purposes? Or do I have to first represent an educational > institute before I can do this. Ever heard of autodidacts? I'm trying to be one. I could probably decompile the Windows kernel for learning purposes, assuming (a) I have the appropriate decompiler, (b) I have the resources necessary to achieve decompilation, and (c) I have substantial legal claim to be able to even begin decompilation (e.g., sign NDAs, sell souls, etc.) Not to mention (d) enough motivation to pursue this effort. But, I found it easier to just get the Linux kernel source, because (a) there's no decompilation needed (hence no need for a decompiler, but maybe a compiler and libc headers,) (b) I can just get the parts I'm interested in (hence saving my current resources to serve those interests,) and (c) I have almost absolute legal claim to study the Linux kernel code (with the only restriction essentially grounding to "don't take credit for the stuff you don't have credit for.") I don't even need to have (d) enough motivation to do this! (e.g. I can just grab stuff, forget it, and move on to hacking Plan 9's source...) > 4) What about EULA's (especially Microsoft)... According to the Fair > Use clause, we can create multiple copies of software programs for > Educational purposes (30 copies of MS Office or MS Windows for one > classroom) but the EULA's restricts anyone from making copies. Will > the EULA's have more weight than our Copyright Law? Talk about contradiction. And, FWIW, EULAs do not equate to copyright, for the same reason that a license to a particular software (to use, copy, redistribute, etc.) is not the same as holding copyright (granting who can do what, and under what terms) over that software. > 5) Is it legal to host torrent files? They are, afterall, pointers to > an actual content and not a copyrighted content itself. I could be oversimplifying, but that question is structurally equivalent to the question `Is it legal to host recipes on building bombs' or 'Is it legal to host nude pictures of XXX'. While hosting both items *may* indicate illegal activity, the fact of hosting them does not by itself constitute a felony. > 6) Is it legal to download copyrighted materials(mpegs, mp3s, pdf) via > P2P? <a> If not, how come no one's suing? <b> If not, can I still use > it for research (again, Fair Use)? <c> If not, can I claim that it is > my backup copy? Again, there's the blur; the issue isn't whether copyrighted materials can be exchanged across P2P networks, it's whether the *license* of a particular material permits redistribution or otherwise. LOL@<c>: you'll probably slap yourself silly over physically acquiring the original materials for each `backup copy' you claim to have acquired over P2P. > 7) It's illegal to sell copyrighted materials, but is it legal to > seed/host them? See last point. I'm starting to play like a broken record here. Actually it *is* legal for you to sell some copyrighted material provided you are granted permission to sell that material, as provided by its license. This is what makes the whole Linux and FOSS thing so saleable in CD distros (and also why smarter vendors are now selling software on virtual machine images, to be deployed in virtual machine compute clouds, and thereby complicating the definition of a 'machine.') > 8) Is it legal to digitize a book for personal or archival purposes? > Or any copyrighted material for that matter. Structurally equivalent to `Is it legal to obtain xerox copies of certain Bible verses, for personal use?' Again, the definite answer can be obtained only by evaluating the license of the work in question (in the case of the Bible, it depends on which version, *and* which translation; the New American Bible, for instance, has a set number of verses one individual can quote from for a writeup or somesuch.) > 9) Who is in charge of overseeing Copyright Infringement? `None' and `I don't know' would be examples of an uninterested answer. Obviously certain government offices oversee the nation for instances of alleged copyright infringement. Also, citizens are quite free to report copyright infringement charges; its a wonder we don't get a lot of such reports in the news... > 10) To what extent can the Business Software Alliance operate on? To whatever their clout can bring them. Usually they would operate on legal bounds, but they can work like CANDLEJACK too and just put a strike force after yo > 11) Can the RIAA and MPAA touch us? NO (or at least, not directly.) Expand the acronyms. > 12) Bayanihan Linux has proprietary codecs included with their > distribution, is it legal for them use and distribute BL? No idea here; talk to Rage Callao about this. > 13) See 11, if it is legal, does that mean that I can create my own > Linux distro, include those codecs, and distribute them on the > Internet (as long as the said distro was developed in our country)? Nothing's really preventing you to wreak havoc on the Internet at the moment. So, try! :D > 14) LibDVDCSS2 and the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray codecs are still considered by > many as cracks. Is it still legal to include them on my home-built > distro and distribute them? See above. > 15) In our country, is it legal to post 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 > 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 and 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2 > on my website, my email signature, print it on my shirt and wear it, > and spray paint it on buildings here in Baguio? [EMAIL PROTECTED]: the fact you wrote this here already means that your statement *will* be held against you, if it is found by a Philippine court that the said sequence of symbols is a trade secret or patent held by someone. Good for you most RTC dockets are clogged with 50-year-old cases... > 16) Is it legal to use FairUse4WM? I am, afterall, entitled to a > backup copy. You are? Prove it. :P Anyway, you can probably use the program scott-free iff you are applying this program over media files of your own creation, which you have (stupidly) applied DRM protection. Other than that, you'd probably get a lawyer :P > 17) Is it legal for me to join Doom9 and help them out by testing > cracks in the Philippine soil? Legality isn't a prerequisite for motivation. Either you join or you don't. Of course, be prepared for any eventualities... > 18) Can OMB arrest me for downloading copyrighted content? Have they? We really need to have a precedent first. > 19) The Phil. Gov't created the Intellectual Property Research and > Training Institute <Philippine Star, C-3 Business>, how can we be sure > that they're not discussing Software Patents. Why even speculate about this? They *ought* to be discussing the applicability of software patents, to which they will find much material elsewhere that suggests otherwise... > 20) Who oversees GPL here in the Philippines? I don't think there's no one overseer (except maybe $DEITY.) > 21) Does FSF have power over GPL'd materials in the Philippines? and > to what extent? Yes, to the extent of the provisions set by the GPL. However, this `power' is simply the charge of ensuring the continued `enforcement' (I don't think this is the right term really, but I can't think of anything else) of the GPL as a license; only the authors of GPL software (specifically, the copyright holders) have some greater power over their software that even the FSF could not overcome. > 22) Can FSF demand we publish the source code of a product that was > developed on Philippine soil even if we're not distributing the > binary? [EMAIL PROTECTED]: FSF *can't* demand anything. Especially if said source is not licensed by any FSF-enforced licenses. Even if said source is GPL-licensed, the FSF still can't even demand squat; only the copyright author can contest that. > I know, some are easy questions (and some questions would alert the > police) but, again, these questions were only directed at me and I am > a bit curious myself. I will be most probably wrong on some (and lucky, if all) counts. If anything, these questions are better off answered in the presence of legal counsel. > I sent this to PLUG, Ubuntu-PH, and Bayanihan. So for those who have > accounts on all 3 MLs, please accept my apologies for spamming your > inbox. Yes, spam is good. FWIW, I LOL'd after seeing you sent this message with a digital signature. Continuing the `speculation,' are we Filipinos even allowed to sign our emails with random bits from /dev/null? Hint: who the fsck is preventing us? :P Cheers, Zakame -- Zak B. Elep [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
