DRM legal advice
Hi, I am preparing a package called get-iplayer, and a potential sponsor has asked me to get your opinion before we go further. If you don't already know, the iPlayer is the BBC's online catch-up service for television and radio programmes broadcast in the previous 7 days. Programmes are available in Flash format on the website, but can also be downloaded and kept for up to 30 days before they expire. Expiry is controlled using DRM, which means the client is Windows-only and therefore Linux users are cut out completely. Programmes are also available through a special iPhone channel. get_iplayer (renamed to get-iplayer for Debian naming restrictions) avoids this by fetching programmes through the iPhone channel in reasonable quality and saving them to disk. However, this also evades the DRM protection so the user is free to keep the files for as long as (s)he likes, which obviously isn't what the BBC wishes. Upstreams documentation does encourage users to respect the restrictions that would be in place and remove files after they should have expired, but there is no technical mechanism for doing so. Can you advise what the Debian position on this is? Please keep me in CC. Thanks -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DRM legal advice
In message 20090304093237.ga17...@lupin.powdarrmonkey.net, Jonathan Wiltshire deb...@jwiltshire.org.uk writes get_iplayer (renamed to get-iplayer for Debian naming restrictions) avoids this by fetching programmes through the iPhone channel in reasonable quality and saving them to disk. However, this also evades the DRM protection so the user is free to keep the files for as long as (s)he likes, which obviously isn't what the BBC wishes. Upstreams documentation does encourage users to respect the restrictions that would be in place and remove files after they should have expired, but there is no technical mechanism for doing so. Can you advise what the Debian position on this is? Please keep me in CC. Not the Debian position, but more the general Free Software attitude of respect other peoples' copyrights ... get-iplayer should implement a technical system whereby it downloads the expiry dates, and auto-deletes the files if the expiry date has passed. If you don't have access to the expiry dates, then default to the 7/30 day limit from the date of download. Okay, any experienced user can trivially by-pass that mechanism, but it takes a conscious effort. At the end of the day, you should respect other peoples wishes with regard to their stuff. If other people choose not to, that's their lookout. Look at the way (I think) official Ghostscript respects Adobe's copy-protection bits. Again, it's trivial to bypass but by default the software respects the copyright holder's wishes. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Apple license and LGPL
René Mayorga rmayo...@debian.org wrote: Is this OK?, I can just let this file to stay at upstream tarball? or I should remove it. If it's not used, I'd remove it. I'm confused about its status. If it's used and no-one explains why APSL is LGPL-compatible, I'd ask BOINC whether there was some permission to rerelease the APSL parts under LGPL that we've not been told about. [...] // This file is adapted from code originally supplied by Apple Computer, Inc. // The Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing project has modified // the original code and made additions as of September 22, 2006. The original // Apple Public Source License statement appears below: So it's not clear whether BOINC was supplied it under LGPL or APSL-1.1? /* * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved. * * @APPLE_LICENSE_HEADER_START@ * * The contents of this file constitute Original Code as defined in and * are subject to the Apple Public Source License Version 1.1 (the * License). APSL-1.1 is not a free software licence. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/historical-apsl.html but see below for why it doesn't matter. You may not use this file except in compliance with the * License. This seems to contradict use under LGPL. Section 7 of http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.1.txt allows us to pick a later version, so we can use it under the free software APSL 2.0. However, APSL 2.0 is GPL-incompatible, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html but I'm not sure whether it's LGPL-compatible. Anyone got time to check, please? Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DRM legal advice
Jonathan Wiltshire deb...@jwiltshire.org.uk wrote: I am preparing a package called get-iplayer, and a potential sponsor has asked me to get your opinion before we go further. I have used get-iplayer on occasion. Thank you to all involved in the third-party debian packages. [...] get_iplayer (renamed to get-iplayer for Debian naming restrictions) avoids this by fetching programmes through the iPhone channel in reasonable quality and saving them to disk. However, this also evades the DRM protection so the user is free to keep the files for as long as (s)he likes, which obviously isn't what the BBC wishes. Upstreams documentation does encourage users to respect the restrictions that would be in place and remove files after they should have expired, but there is no technical mechanism for doing so. Can you advise what the Debian position on this is? Please keep me in CC. No, we cannot advise what the Debian position on anything is. We can give our opinions and ask you to convey them to those who do decide the debian position (maintainers, sponsors, ftpmasters). debian-legal is advisory. The decision-makers are the ftpmasters (ultimately, but they're a bit busy and tend to listen to advice) and the package maintainers. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Usually, the maintainers ask debian-legal, but there are some notable exceptions, IMO thanks to various hate campaigns. If two maintainers have totally different views, I guess ftpmasters get to play referee while debian-legal are the linesmen. Back to the package: It's evading the DRM, not cracking it, so I think it also evades the various DRM/TPM enforcement laws. On that front, I'd include it in debian. One minor concern is whether the downloaded video files require codecs from non-free to play. I don't think they do, but I've not checked that closely recently. If it requires non-free codecs, I'd submit it to the contrib archive. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DRM legal advice
On Wed Mar 04 09:32, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: get_iplayer (renamed to get-iplayer for Debian naming restrictions) avoids this by fetching programmes through the iPhone channel in reasonable quality and saving them to disk. However, this also evades the DRM protection so the user is free to keep the files for as long as (s)he likes, which obviously isn't what the BBC wishes. AIUI the BBC service provides 3 viewing channels: - flash (online streamed only) - Windows client (DRM restricted) - iPhone client (no restrictions) If you were removing the DRM on the windows channel I would certainly say that was against the law in DMCA/EUCD countries. In the case of the iPhone downloads there is (AFAIK) no restriction on the download other than claiming to be an iPhone, so I don't think you can be said to have circumvented an effective technical protection measure. One might claim that the act of claiming to be an iPhone when one is not would count as such a circumvention, but I don't believe merely checking the user-agent string (or whatever) would count as an 'effective technical protection measure'. Obviously IANAL etc. Matt P.S. if you don't upload it to Debian proper, consider contacting the debian-multimedia guys. -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DRM legal advice
Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: Not the Debian position, but more the general Free Software attitude of respect other peoples' copyrights ... get-iplayer should implement a technical system whereby it downloads the expiry dates, and auto-deletes the files if the expiry date has passed. [...] This puzzled me in three ways: Do the copyright terms of things on iplayer actually have expiry dates, or is that something merely enforced by technical measures on some of the download methods? Aren't we allowed reasonable timeshifting for limited purposes? (Why should get-iplayer be treated differently to recording the same things off of VirginMedia's on-demand service?) Wouldn't the above data loss be a grave bug in the sense of http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities ? Refusing to play would be better, although get-iplayer doesn't necessarily do the playback, so I'm not sure that's feasible. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Encore Thursday!! Do Bulk REO Deals With No Mon'ey or Cre'dit
Hi Cameron Dunlap here. If you missed my Webinar last Wed. on buying and selling Bulk REO's with no mon'ey or cre'dit you're in luck. Sal Buscemi hasd agreed to do an encore training with me on Thursday, 3/5/09 at 8:00 PM East, 5:00 PM West. It was the best training I've presented in a long time and one you can't afford to miss. My guest Sal Buscemi is the best there is in the business. He buys REO packages every day and he's going to teach you how to do it too. Then you can flip the package to him for a tidy pro'fit or he'll lo'an you the mon'ey to close on the package, then you can resell the properties individually and make a for'tune. Lets face it, Wall Street is a mess but Sal and his team are still in business, even when most of his competitors have failed. Just last week he was quoted in the Investors Business Daily print version.. again. http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=27issue=20090219 Sal will share his best kept secrets on how to leg'ally steal from the banks during this once in a lifetime opportunity. Don't miss it. Don't miss this fr'ee webinar. Go here now to register. https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/796285437 On this webinar, you'll get audio and video on your computer and we'll simulcast the audio over the phone too, so you have the choice. Space is very limited so don't wait. Register now. https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/796285437 Talk to you then. Kellie Brown Dandrew Capital Partners LLC 156 5th Avenue Suite 823 New York, New York 10010 www.dandrewpartners.com http://app.streamsend.com/private/w4D0/NeX/jLRZnWz/unsubscribe/3096712
Re: DRM legal advice
In message 49ae6b15.fqybgcvyp1ig7h3c%...@phonecoop.coop, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: Not the Debian position, but more the general Free Software attitude of respect other peoples' copyrights ... get-iplayer should implement a technical system whereby it downloads the expiry dates, and auto-deletes the files if the expiry date has passed. [...] This puzzled me in three ways: Do the copyright terms of things on iplayer actually have expiry dates, or is that something merely enforced by technical measures on some of the download methods? If I've got it right, the play on demand files are deleted (or at least made inaccessible) on the server after 7 days. The downloaded files cannot be played after 30 days, so I would *hope* iPlayer deletes them rather than leaving them around ... Aren't we allowed reasonable timeshifting for limited purposes? (Why should get-iplayer be treated differently to recording the same things off of VirginMedia's on-demand service?) Define reasonable. How long is a piece of string? Wouldn't the above data loss be a grave bug in the sense of http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities ? Refusing to play would be better, although get-iplayer doesn't necessarily do the playback, so I'm not sure that's feasible. If get-iplayer doesn't do any playback, then I'm not sure there's any way to enforce the restrictions. But if get-iplayer is meant to emulate iplayer, then I wouldn't call emulating its delete out-of-date files a bug - a feature maybe, but I still think respecting other peoples' copyrights and conditions by default is the correct way to go ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DRM legal advice
Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: In message 49ae6b15.fqybgcvyp1ig7h3c%...@phonecoop.coop, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes [...] Do the copyright terms of things on iplayer actually have expiry dates, or is that something merely enforced by technical measures on some of the download methods? If I've got it right, the play on demand files are deleted (or at least made inaccessible) on the server after 7 days. The downloaded files cannot be played after 30 days, so I would *hope* iPlayer deletes them rather than leaving them around ... Where did 7 and 30 days come from? The terms I just found at http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_iplayer/termscon say 5. In order to meet the BBC's obligations to rights holders, the BBC will embed downloadable BBC with digital rights management security. The expiry date for the BBC Content that you download will vary according to the agreements BBC has with rights holders of that content. BBC Content will be automatically deleted from your computer once its expiry date has been reached. Does the BBC Content downloaded by get-iplayer have such an embedded expiry date? I don't know whether those terms apply to the BBC Content if used alone, or only if used in combination with BBC's Download Manager. Aren't we allowed reasonable timeshifting for limited purposes? (Why should get-iplayer be treated differently to recording the same things off of VirginMedia's on-demand service?) Define reasonable. How long is a piece of string? I looked it up and reasonable for this is solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 1988 (c.48) section 70). http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk (when will they offer nice permalinks?) I think it's not for us to quantify reasonable in software here. Wouldn't the above data loss be a grave bug in the sense of http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities ? Refusing to play would be better, although get-iplayer doesn't necessarily do the playback, so I'm not sure that's feasible. If get-iplayer doesn't do any playback, then I'm not sure there's any way to enforce the restrictions. I've been playing back the downloads in Totem because that was what happened by default. get-iplayer could scan downloads whenever it's run, but wouldn't that be a grave bug? But if get-iplayer is meant to emulate iplayer, then I wouldn't call emulating its delete out-of-date files a bug - a feature maybe, but I still think respecting other peoples' copyrights and conditions by default is the correct way to go ... It's not at all clear to me which conditions apply here: the iPlayer terms, the statements in the CDP Act or something else? Timeshifting doesn't fail to respect their copyright - our law explicitly says it's not infringement. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Apple license and LGPL
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:21:40 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] Section 7 of http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.1.txt allows us to pick a later version, so we can use it under the free software APSL 2.0. I don't think the APSL 2.0 is acceptable for main. Last time we discussed this license on debian-legal, the consensus seemed to be that software distributed (solely) under the terms of the APSL version 2.0 does *not* comply with the DFSG. I've just re-read the thread: it seems that nobody said the license was OK. Please see the following thread http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00545.html for all the details. As usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND nano-documents may lead you to my website... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp3PDZx8BxnR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Apple license and LGPL
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote: I don't think the APSL 2.0 is acceptable for main. [...] Please see the following thread http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00545.html for all the details. So, to summarise: - it contaminates other software (DFSG 9) in patent-afflicted places, and/or discriminates against hardware patent holders (DFSG 5); - it has a choice of venue clause (DFSG 1 to some people); - there's an open question about service provision; - there's a potential supertrademark in clause 10; but the blocker is probably: - clause 2.3 looks like a practical problem for compiled code in debian. So I really hope that BOINC have a wholly-LGPL copy. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
