Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Operating Systems BSD

Dolby Tells NetBSD Project: Don't Decode AC3 499

Posted by timothy from the snappy-letterhead dept.
Mycroft writes: "There's a new entrant into the open source DVD legal battle: Dolby Laboratories. The NetBSD Project received this letter demanding that links to the open source ac3dec package be removed. What's next?" Probably what's next are yet more letters sent to every other project which enables decoding of content on platforms unsupported by the format licensors. Remember, you don't buy anything anymore -- you license it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dolby Tells NetBSD Project: Don't Decode AC3 More

Dolby Tells NetBSD Project: Don't Decode AC3

Comments Filter:

  • Jesus. (Score:5, Funny)

    by kypper ( 446750 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @04:34PM (#2112322)
    Remember, you don't buy anything anymore -- you license it.

    In other news, the populace of the world collectively threw up their hands as Corporations began the patenting and licensing of water to the human race.

    Russia commented this afternoon, stating that they didnt' give a flying fuck.

    Hong Kong stated that they had been pirating that for years, and would continue to whether we liked it or not.

    China closed all relations, stating that, "We may be brutal, but you guys are just plain insane."

    Canada dropped all pretense and joined the US.

    ...before any canuks nail me, I am Canadian. :op But we're getting there.

    • ...before any canuks nail me, I am Canadian. :op But we're getting there

      Yes, and all this talk of 'unifying borders' between US/Canada/Mexico is a massive Trojan Horse. The Yankees are interested in an increased population (more surfs) - but Canadians have to realize that in order for us to have LAWS that differ from theirs; ie: being able to govern ourselves, we have to maintain our borders. Until the American Government is willing to sign up as a member of the Canadian Federation I say we keep the borders up...

      The day Canada ceases to be able to govern itself, for want of Yankee meddling, is the day I move to Europe. I will have my 'EU Citizenship' shortly... I see it coming, and its fucking scary.

    • If I become American, it's on MY terms, not on theirs.

      I will move to Europe or Asia as soon as our borders fall.

    • "Russia commented this afternoon, stating that they didnt' give a flying fuck."

      The advantages of still having a viable nuclear arsenal. :)

      "Canada dropped all pretense and joined the US."

      I've said it before and I'll say it again: You guys make a better puppet state. With you, we have two votes instead of one in the UN, G8, so on and so forth...

  • Europe (Score:2, Informative)

    by howardjp ( 5458 )
    Software patents are still against the rules in Europe. Move the software there and Dolby has no recourse.

  • Two Words (Score:4, Funny)

    by jgerman ( 106518 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @04:36PM (#2117852)
    Bite me... Just kidding, the two words are "Easy Fix". According to the DMCA which they are using to try and stop the distribution of the decoder, we can encode it so and only give permision to decode it to people who rescind all claims at lawsuits resulting from the viewing of the code. After the Dmitry fiasco we don't even have to encode it in anything strong. One misspelling should do. They're not allowed to decode it to see that we are doing anything illegal, and any evidence gained will be illegal and inadmissable in court.

    The preceding paragraph was a tongue at cheek poke at the DMCA and attempt to render it as anything but is illegal according to the DMCA. Furthermore to take away any meaning from the paragraph that is not desired by the writer is expressly forbidden by the DMCA.

    Furthermore the reading of the above disclaimer constitutes agreement to all rules outlined herein (and any I should make up in the future).

    The preceding paragraph is legally binding according to the UCITA bill. Passed in Maryland where this post was written.

    We interrupt this post to tell you that those responsible for the UCITA and the DMCA have been sacked.

    Terribly sorry, this post is being interrupted again to tell you that we cannot according to the DMCA decode the english that the DMCA and UCITA bills are written in, in order to introduce them as evidence for rightful termination. Those who were to sack the resposible parties have been sacked.

    • Re:Two Words (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cei ( 107343 )
      This isn't a DCMA issue. It's a patent issue, and it's a good patent. They actually created something new and protected it. It's not like many of the bogus patents of late. The ability to encode 6 channels of discrete audio in one signal doesn't qualify as "obvious".

      • Re:Two Words (Score:3, Interesting)

        by blang ( 450736 )
        This isn't a DCMA issue. It's a patent issue, and it's a good patent. They actually created something new and protected it. It's not like many of the bogus patents of late. The ability to encode 6 channels of discrete audio in one signal doesn't qualify as "obvious".

        You're right about the DMCA part. This is not about circumventing copyright protection devices.

        In my view it has much more in common with Rambus. Dolby has been pushing their solution as a "standard" sic!. They are trying to push all content providers towards their solution. This means you can buy a copy of a movie with dolby, and you have to pay dolby licence money to get access to that copy. In that sense, they're playing the same game as RIAA.

        They are also playing the same game as rambus.

        Dolby is making a bunch by getting a slice of the cake both for the encoding and decoding. We shold only have to pay at one of the ends. Content providers should pay dolby tax, and content consumers should get to decode for free, since they've already paid the tax indirectly through the content provider.

        Legally everything Dolby did is just fine, but I don't have to like it.

        • In my view it has much more in common with Rambus. Dolby has been pushing their solution as a "standard" sic!.

          Not really, Dolby has never concealled the fact that it is hawking a patented technology. Nor have they joined a standards group in order to extend their patents to cover the technology developed by others.

          AC3 / Dolby Digital is not a simple spec. There are several patents required to implement it. The filling dates appear to be in the 1990s, the first AC3 movie came out in 1992 (Batman returns) which means that the technology should be out of patent in 2010.

    • Re:Two Words (Score:4, Funny)

      by MyopicProwls ( 122482 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @05:57PM (#2166865) Homepage
      That's a supreme idea. Take it the final step forward and write it up: submit to Slashdot the "Whitepaper on the 'PLAINTEXT' Encryption Scheme". Hell, I know all MY code is encoded using the PLAINTEXT Encryption Scheme, and yours probably is, too.

      At the very least, it would be a great way to get a funny letter back from one of these big companies. Imagine them sending you a letter that said

      "Stop distributing Code X. Under the DMCA, it is a circumvention device for our Product Y."

      Send them back a letter saying

      "Code X is distributed exclusively under the PLAINTEXT Encryption Scheme, which is covered under Title Z of the DMCA. Please explain how you determined our noncompliance with your intellectual property without breaking the PLAINTEXT Encryption Scheme (and thus violating the DMCA) and then we can talk."

      What would you get back? They'd pretty much have to respond with "Fuck you". And you would respond back with "No, fuck YOU." In the end their lawyers would outlaw you, but the letters would be precious.

      • "plaintext"? Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by roystgnr ( 4015 ) <royNO@SPAMstogners.org> on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @06:21PM (#2166996) Homepage
        Maybe you just don't care about your sensitive data as much as I do: all my important textual data has been encrypted into a binary format according to the American Standard Code for Information Interchange.

        That's right, Standard Code. This time-tested encryption codec converts my plaintext characters like 'A' and 'Z' into incomprehensible binary strings like '01000001' and '01011010', to keep them secure from the predations of evil hackers. Surely, any unauthorized device that would translate from this machine-dependent format into a human language, and even display the outputted stolen intellectual property to thieving computer hackers, would have to be illegal.

        Okay, maybe all you Slashbots are just laughing at me right now, but can't you imagine one of us slipping this stuff past a judge?

  • This sounds familiar... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Silver222 ( 452093 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @04:35PM (#2117995)
    From the bottom of the first page:
    Licenses are modeled on an adaptive basis relative to your business plan

    Kinda like Vinny the local loanshark adapts your payment plan based on which body parts he's cracked with a Louisville Slugger in the last week.

  • linking should be legal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @04:33PM (#2120344)
    linking should be the same legally is telling someone where to find some information. That should never be illegal.

    If it is, then we need to lobby the governemnts to make it explicitly protected as free speech.

  • Bwahahaha! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 11223 ( 201561 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @04:32PM (#2126431)
    Dolby just said that they have license plans congruent to their "business plan".

    I wonder what dodo there in Legal didn't realize that NetBSD's business plan is to "build the best and most portable (ported?) free UNIX-like OS and give it away free with complete source code with no restrictions for commercial use or extension".

    I wonder what licensing terms they have that are amenable to those goals?

    • "I wonder what licensing terms they have that are amenable to those goals?"

      Apparently nobody bothered to ask them.

      In spite of which they sent a fairly non-confrontational, non-bullying letter in defense of their rights.

      Dolby doesn't have to license everybody under the same terms, but if they let anybody get away with not being licensed, then nobody will bother to negotiate a license and Dolby will have spent a lot of time and money developing something that everybody uses and nobody pays them for.

      This isn't the same as burning through a bunch of capital on something nobody wants, that's one of the risks of capitalism, but if people use it without paying that's not the same thing.

      If Ford brought back the Edsel and nobody bought one that'd be their tough luck, but if people started stealing them instead of buying them and nobody did anything to stop it, pretty soon they'd all get stolen, and saying that Ford has to give away cars at their own expense isn't the same as saying they have to take their chances in the marketplace just like anybody else.

    • Re:Bwahahaha! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Quikah ( 14419 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @05:48PM (#2166792)
      Well here [dolby.com] is the information on licensing. License is $10,000 plus royalties on each sale. Looking through the steps they have to certify the product before granting the license so I am not sure how compatible that would be with open source.
  • Any word on whether streaming AC3 over IEC958 is covered by their patents?
    • It's not clear to me what Dolby lAbs is claiming rights to. They're not claiming rights to the content being encoded using AC3. They're claiming rights to the mechanism of encoding. IF they were claiming rights to the content being encoded then they'd have rights under the DMCA, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

      If they're claiming rights to the actual encoding/decoding mechanism, then do they really have a leg to stand on here? Under what thory are they claiming IP rights to an implementation of an AC3 decoder developed through reverse-engineering? Perhaps I missed that section of the DMCA... I'll have to read it again more carefully.

      --CTH

  • Cleanroom? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lowe0 ( 136140 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @04:40PM (#2127926) Homepage
    If it's cleanroom, tell 'em to fuck off directly.

    If it's not, well, let that be a lesson to you.

    AC-3 is NOT encrypted, unless it's been run through CSS. (At least not the last time I checked.) Therefore, this isn't a DMCA case. It's a patent litigation covering an algorithm. If it's a cleanroom implementation (which I assume it is, as I don't know of any tech docs on AC-3), then this should be cool.

    Also, does Dolby have a product in the BSD space? If not, then this is a little unfair... besides, how big is the NetBSD market compared to Dolby's market anyways?

    • Re:Cleanroom? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Fizgig ( 16368 )
      No, in the case of patents, cleanroom doesn't matter at all. It's still a violation. Cleanroom is to protect from copyright violations.

    • Re:Cleanroom? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If you'd looked on Dolby's website 6 months ago you'd have found the full AC3 specifications free for anyone to download [and implement, as far as any "licensing restrictions" went on those specs - there were none].

      I must put the specs on my site when I get home tonight.

    • Re:Cleanroom? (Score:5, Informative)

      by joto ( 134244 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @04:54PM (#2166418)
      Doesn't matter at all. If Dolby has patented it, there is nothing you can do. A cleanroom implementation is used to avoid problems with copyright, not patents.

      Unfortunately, I don't know much about either what AC3 is all about, or what the patents claim, but a quick patent search on delphion showed two patents related to it.

      1. Recording medium, recording apparatus and recording method for recording data into recording medium, and reproducing apparatus and reproducing method for reproducing data from recording medium [delphion.com]
      2. Apparatus and method for reproducing data from recording medium containing data units [delphion.com]

      So I don't think a cleanroom implementation would help at all. But there could be a way to work around the patents...

      • So I don't think a cleanroom implementation would help at all.

        Very true. As I have pointed out in other threads underscoring the monumental stupidity in having government granted and enforced monopolies in a free market economic system, the vast majority of patent violations are a result of rediscovery (i.e. "clean room" implementations) rather than cribbing an existing patent or even reverse engineering an existing product.

        But there could be a way to work around the patents...

        Like, um, developing the software outside of the United States. Most of the rest of the world hasn't yet followed the American stupidity of granting patents on software (much less "business methods" or any of the numerous other methods IP Lawyers-as-judges have come up with to create artificial scarcity in the realm of ideas, stifle creativity and technological progress and, incidentally, line their own pockets and the pockets of their profession in the process).

    • nope (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jon_c ( 100593 )
      the DMCA lets people sue you for pretty much anything dealing with "technology" and "copyright"

      for instance i got this [sourceforge.net] a few months ago because my program [sourceforge.net] ripped live365.com [live365.com] streams.


      The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") prohibits the circumvention of "a technological protection measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." 17 U.S.C. * 1201(a)(1)(A). As previously noted, Live365.com has designed its web site and related software to ensure that the streaming music it provides on its Internet radio stations complies with the provisions pertaining to the statutory license to publicly perform sound recordings under the Copyright Act. In so doing, Live365.com has taken precautions to preclude users from recording or storing transmissions of its Internet broadcasts. The player software designed to be used with Live365.com does not permit recording and, in fact, is designed to prevent it.


      In contravention of this precaution, you have created software which enables users to store these broadcasts. This has circumvented a "technological measure" which "effectively controls access" to copyrighted works. See RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., No. C99-2070P, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1889, at *18-19 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 18, 2000). Such manipulation of Live365's protective measures constitutes a violation of the provisions of the DMCA.


      Ya, it's a load of bullshit, but unless you can afford to defend it you SoL.

      -Jon

  • What IPR? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cfulmer ( 3166 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @04:37PM (#2128154) Journal
    So, the letter said that ac3dec infringed on Dolby'd intellectual property rights, but didn't specify what rights that was -- it said that AC3 had been registered with the patent and trademark office, but didn't list a patent number.

    I think I would send a letter back asking exactly which patent or copyright work was being infringed. As it is, it sounds like the letter is just a scare tactic with no meat behind it.

    • Re:What IPR? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by prizog ( 42097 )
      Dolby has lots of patents that mention AC-3. Here's one of them:

      http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO 2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search- bool.html&r= 1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=pall&s1=d olby.ASNM.&s2=ac-3&O S=AN/dolby+AND+ac-3&RS=AN/dolby+AND+ac-3

      At least, the USPTO search said it mentioned AC-3...

      Anyway, see figure 9 in that (the pseudocode). Not only is it dead obvious, it *doesn't work* in some cases. Consider chunks of len = 2, and the forbidden pattern 01, with replacement pattern 10:

      Now, encode this: 01.
      You get: 101. Which contains 01.
      OK, so you're not allowed to pick 10 as your replacement... so what is allowed? 11? OK, encode this:
      1101
      You get:
      111101
      Contains: 01

      Sure, that's not what they mean... But my point remains: this patent isn't worth the electrons it's printed on.

    • Why didn't FreeBSD [freebsd.org] also get a letter? (or did it? I'm not in the lists).

    • Re:What IPR? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Old Wolf ( 56093 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @06:36PM (#2167095)
      It's situations like this that make corporations (not looking at anyone in Redmond in particular here) reluctant to publish specs for their protocols.

  • do not go gently (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cygnus ( 17101 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @04:34PM (#2145799) Homepage
    it seems to me that a battle is being fought, and we're likely to see moves like this from the companies that control any sort of digital conduit from one device to another.

    when digital started becoming popular, many of the companies that developed technologies that shuffled digital media around didn't envision a day when the average user would be able to shuffle that digital content around with the facility that peer to peer and the Internet provides.

    now that we can do that, they've basically realized that they've been caught with their pants down, and now they're trying to not only prevent the next logical step in the digital media revolution (the 'loosening up' of content), they're poised to roll back the rights we used to have. they're going to try to roll out set top boxes that can decide whether or not we can tape a television broadcast, e-book readers that won't let friends share novels or libraries lend books, movies that we have to pay for each time we watch 'em, etc.

    that's why open source software is such a boon to consumers.. only an organization of individuals can really undermine what is becoming a corperate war on our current techie way of life.

    hack on, boys and girls!

    • ``...they're going to try to roll out set top boxes that can decide whether or not we can tape a television broadcast, e-book readers that won't let friends share novels or libraries lend books, movies that we have to pay for each time we watch 'em, etc.''

      It's already starting. If I use the optical output of my LD/DVD/CD player into the A/V receiver I get no analog output at the tape outputs. Now perhaps I've got more studying of the manuals to do but this wasn't a problem until I installed the optical cables. If dubbing to my cassette deck is, indeed, possible -- without having to get behind the equipment and recable -- they're sure as hell making it difficult. The audio electronics industry seems to be rolling over on command to whatever the music distribution industry want them to do. The video electronics manufacturers aren't quite so compliant (even some broadcasters seem to be balking at the pressure) but my guess is that they'll soon become trained lapdogs just like their audio brethren.

  • Pretend for a minute that in the future, almost everything will be licensed (your car, your computer, whatever). If I do something that displeases my employer, maybe make some disparaging remarks about them online or something and it gets traced back to me, could they pressure other companies to revoke my licenses, effectively taking everything back from me? Yes, this is paranoia, but the fact is that if I can't own things, they can be taken away.

    I once angrily spouted out at a family gathering, "I hate capitalism, but I still want to own my own stuff!" What I didn't realize then is that I actually hated our current system, which technically isn't pure capitalism, or rather, doesn't capture capitalism's ideal of everyone fighting fairly and letting the markets take a logical course of action. Silly me, I used to think logic drove us humans. But what's the alternative? Socialism? Eww.

    • Re: This is why licensing should stop (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kypper ( 446750 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @04:42PM (#2125242)
      ...But what's the alternative? Socialism? Eww.

      Socialism is an ideal - a concept. What many Americans fail to understand is that so is Capitalism. Both have very good pros, and obvious drawbacks, and both are incredibly susceptable to corruption.

      Americans don't have a true, beneficial capitalism. It is but an idea, and fully impractical as it will always be warped and twisted for private gain.

  • Thank God. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @04:31PM (#2148698)
    I've been waiting for forever for a good test lawsuit like this-- someone being threatened for linking to something which may be of dubious legality, but doesn't have the OOH COPYRIGHT PIRATE 2600 HACKER!! connotations that DeCSS did.

    We need a firm legal precedent to be set showing that hyperlinks are always free speech, even if they link illegal content.. hopefully BSD and the EFF will give us that.
    • The New York DeCSS case governs linking to websites that provide access to the allegedly anticircumventing software.

      And there was a case last year out of a Utah District Court involving the Mormon Church, and holding that links to copyrighted subject matter constituted a form of copyright infringement.
  • It isn't their software (is it? It didn't sound like it in the letter). It's just software that does something they don't want it to do.. Does copyright/patent law really say that they aren't supposed to have that?

    I understand the DMCA and all that. But they're not claiming circumvention or anything, they're just saying its unlicensed. But is the ac3dec package Dolby's to license in the first place?

    -Justin

  • So Tiresome, sometimes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by unicorn ( 8060 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @04:44PM (#2166349)
    Dolby has invested sweat, and regular equity in this system. It is entirely their perrogative, to control who can use it.

    If you object to having to have a "licensed" playback device to use this media, by all means don't buy anything that uses this scheme.

    Timothy phrased his comments such, that it sounds like the content creator is trying to limit playback on FreeBSD, which is completely wrong. This simply is a developer exercising their right to control how their code is used. I bet /. would be up in arms, if MS could be proven to use open source code in one of their products in violation of the license. Why is Dolby being held to a different standard?
    • Timothy phrased his comments such, that it sounds like the content creator is trying to limit playback on FreeBSD, which is completely wrong. This simply is a developer exercising their right to control how their code is used.

      That's incorrect. The letter did not say anything about illegally used code. It seems that Dolby is trying to limit the use of an independently developed program (written using the ac3 spec), based on a vague claim of IP rights. AFAICT, the letter doesn't give any specifics as to what ac3dec is violating... no specific patents or trademarks seem mentioned. And iirc, ac3 is a standard, and Dolby Digital is the trademark....
    • Dolby has invested sweat, and regular equity in this system. It is entirely their perrogative, to control who can use it.


      First, as others have mentioned, this is about an independent implementation of AC-3, presumably, Dolby is claiming it is violating some patent of theirs, though I would refuse to take action until they actually specify which patent(s) the believe are being infringed on.

      Second, your quote above is a huge are of misconception about intellectual property. Unlike physical property, which is considered a right, intellectual propery "rights" are granted by the government to encourage creativity for the public good. IP laws must then balance the incentives to the creator with the utility to the public. Any laws or practices in contradition with this goal (cough, DMCA, cough) are unconstitutional.

      Obviously, I am talking about the US here, but since most of the rest of the world doesn't allow software patents, I think that is reasonable.

      I think software patents are always harmful to the public, so they should be abolished. Hardware/device patents are rapidly approaching the point of being counter-productive.

  • Wow. (Score:5, Informative)

    by 11223 ( 201561 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @04:45PM (#2166351)
    I didn't realize exactly what this was (the site linked is mega-slashdotted), but a quick google search [google.com] turned up the following:

    • It's part of [linuxvideo.org] the Linux Video project, which describes it as "completely useless to 99.99 percent of users out there. It is mostly of use to those interested in audio coding research and evaluating codecs."
    • There's an XMMS plugin [xmms.org] for it.
    • It's also part of the ALSA project [alsa-project.org], which chances are provides your sound drivers if you're using one of several popular Linux distributions.
    • RPMFind also has RPMS for it (try rpmfind ac3dec!)

    Before someone accuses me of being a karma whore - I'm already over the cap and sinking towards 50 fast!

  • Is every bit of human endeavor going to be stifled by cease and desist letters or demands for royalties? You know, somebody should take out a patent on this technology that enables the encoding and storage of human phonetics (called the alphabet) onto a semi-permanent medium (paper) and sue these cocksuckers for violation every time they send out one of these asinine cease and desist letters. That'll learn 'em!

  • Patents at work (Score:5, Informative)

    by tbo ( 35008 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @04:47PM (#2166372) Journal
    Ok, the letter from Dolby was none to clear about what the actual problem was, but I suspect it's a patent infringement, not copyright. As such, it has little or nothing to do with the DMCA.

    Put plainly, if you develop an encoding/decoding standard, and intelligently patent key parts of that standard, you own it. Doesn't matter if anybody reverse-engineers it in a clean room. You still own it until the patent expires.

    The only ways around the patent are to find a completely different way of decoding/encoding the data (very unlikely, if the patent attorney did his job), or doing everything in a country in which the invention is not patented, does not have extradition treaties (etc) with the US, and is not part of whatever the hell that international convention on IP is called. Such countries generally aren't good places to live or work, for other reasons.

    Is Dolby in the wrong? I'd have to see the details of the patent to say. It may be genuine innovation, or it may be more along the lines of the Amazon one-click patent.

  • Icon (Score:2)

    by csbruce ( 39509 )
    The story icon is a little confusing as the lawyergram in question didn't use the dreaded 'P' word even once. One would presume that if they had relevant patents that they would mention them, rather than referring to vague "intellectual property". Unless copyrighted material in directly included in the package, a simple "please go and fuck yourself" response would seem appropriate.
    • Third paragraph: It's registered with the "United States Patent and Trademark Office." Since I'm pretty sure they didn't trademark it (trademarks are for words and logos), and copyright is handled by the Library of Congress [loc.gov], that leaves...

  • What's the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by scott1853 ( 194884 )
    This is at least one of the most nicely worded threats I've read so far. Besides, they state right in the letter that they should be contacted to discuss licensing and they want to fully support the adoption of AC-3. So TALK TO THEM.

    Typical open source response though.

    "Look, a company sent us a letter and they're saying that they don't want to give everything away for free like we do. We must stop them and save the world from tyranny!"

    Meanwhile, regardless of the OS the open source developers are using, they're using processors and other hardware created by big commercial entities. Maybe those hardware companies don't have a problem giving away all the specs or complete source code but THEY ARE SELLING HARDWARE, not software.

    Taco had it right a few weeks ago when he slapped the hands of all the pro-linux groups.

    I'm not exactly sure what the open source extremists want from the big guys. If they open their source code, would you use it after you spent years complaining their software sucked? Would you fix it for them, when you know you'd look like a hypocrit for helping a company you've previously bashed. Are you too lazy to find your own solutions for todays software solvable problems? Of course most of what open source is, is start with the idea from a big company, and then just write a program to duplicate all the functionality. Doesn't sound terribly creative to me. Besides, the big companies aren't taking any money away from you, because YOU'RE GIVING AWAY EVERYTHING FOR FREE! So what the hell is everybody complaining about.

  • I really don't see why Dolby would have a problem with people cracking open their standard. It isn't useful for copying, you don't need to be able to open the audio stream to copy it. The only reason you'd want to decode the audio is if you planned on watching it which Dolby shouldn't have a problem with. Am I missing something obvious or is Dolby just being a jerk?

  • I'm getting a little sick of this notion that everything should be free. Dolby is fully within their rights to do whatever they damn well please with their technology. They developed it, they paid for it, and they own it.

    The right of ownership doesn't end when you cross over from atoms to bits. That same right of ownership and property is what keeps me from taking the Linux source and making my own proprietary kernel. If someone did that, the Slashdot population would be shitting kittens for weeks and threatening to hang the company by their gonads. Dolby developed the AC3 standard, they have a right to expect the work they put into it to pay off, including charging to use it. Linus and Co. developed the Linux kernel, and they have a right to expect the work they put into it to pay off, including making it open for all to use.

    It doesn't matter that ac3dec has uses other than piracy. It's still using someone elses property without their recompense or permission. While Dolby shouldn't sue over this issue (it would be pointless anyway, the genie's already out of the bottle...) there's no logical, rational justification for this crap about "corporations eroding our freedoms". It's as much a pile of bullshit as this "the GPL erodes your freedom" crap from Microsoft. When you create something, you have the right to do with it as you please, and just because you don't like what Dolby's doing with their product doesn't mean that you can force them to go along with your terms.

    • Re:Give it up people! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nyet ( 19118 )
      The right of ownership doesn't end when you cross over from atoms to bits. That same right of ownership and property is what keeps me from taking the Linux source and making my own proprietary kernel. If someone did that, the Slashdot population would be shitting kittens for weeks and threatening to hang the company by their gonads

      I am sick and tired of this completely retarded meme.

      The purpose of the GPL is NOT to prevent people from making money from your code. In fact, feel free to take ANY of the GPL'd code i've written and attempt to resell it.

      The purpose of the GPL is to make sure *I* (and everybody else) can use my code any way they please, DESPITE the fact that you a) use it and b) resell it. e.g. YOU can't copyright it. YOU cant patent it. YOU can't prevent me from giving away my (or anyone elses) GPL'd code.

      And some of us DO believe the right of ownership ends when you cross from atoms to bits. YOU know that. I know that. So why are you even prefacing your argument with that statement, when you KNOW most of the readers here will immediately dismiss it offhand, thus completely invalidating your rant?

      The GREAT thing about bits is that they CAN be copied perfectly, verbatim, at no cost, and without the degradation of the original bits. Why not harness that property rather than mindlessly hack it until it LOOKS like an artificial scarcity?

  • Canada? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Spud Zeppelin ( 13403 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @05:04PM (#2166487)
    From the looks of the link, the openac3 project is based at the University of Victoria. While south of the 49th parallel, the last time I checked the University of Victoria was still in Canada.

    That said, what is the validity of software patents under CANADIAN law? Anyone (a Canadian IP lawyer, for example) have the answer to that burning question? If they aren't valid in Canada, it would appear that any claims Dolby has that their patent is being infringed by openac3 are pretty much moot.
  • Dolby is alleging patent infringement. This is completely different from MPAA and RIAA actions which have relied on the DMCA. The DMCA invokes criminal penalties for what amounts to reverse-engineering of unpatented scrambling techniques.

    I am not saying this Dolby vs. BSD conflict is a good thing, but it is consistent with how I have always understood patents to work. It's nothing new.

    And remember that if they don't enforce their patents, they lose them. Who knows, maybe they will work out a sweetheart deal with the BSD folks. Then Dobly won't loose their right to charge license fees to others who make commercial products.

    In short, I wouldn't panic yet.

    MM
  • To Whom It May Concern:

    I'm Writing to inform you that we have recently discovered the presence of unlicensed downloadable content from your website:
    slashdot.org [slashdot.org]
    and:
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/07/206201 &mode=thread [slashdot.org]


    Dolby Digital is the licensor for the AC-3 audio coding technology commonly referred to as Dolby Digital. From your website we were able to download software containing unlicensed AC-3 code components which may not be distributed under any terms absent a license agreement. The distribution of this software, whether directly of (or?) indirectly (via link to a remote URL), without such a license is unlawful as it infringes on the intellectual property rights of Dolby Laboratories. Civil liability for intellectual property infringement requires only that the offender reasonably believe that his actions are likely to result in the infringing use of another's property. Linking to a remote URL known to contain downloadable AC-3 material exposes you to the same liability as the offender providing the downloadable AC-3 file. Accordingly, the AC-3 software accessible from your site must be removed from public access immediatly

    AC-3 code and its components are the exclusive property of Dolby Laboratories (San Francisco, California) and are registered as such with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Use and distribution of AC-3 technologies whether for commercial distribution, research, component development or other personal interest requires our issuance of a license tailored to your specific use or business model. Without a license, you may not distribute or utilize the AC-3 code or its components and doing so exposes you to civil liability including money damages.

    If you are interested in obtaining an AC-3 license, I encourage you to contact Dolby Laboratories at SRF@dolby.com [mailto]. Licenses are modeled on an adaptive basis relative to your business plan. Our goal is to provide inexpensive licensing arrangements to promote the use and adoption of the AC-3 technology.

    Dolby Laboratories considers the unauthorized use and distribution of the AC-3 technologies a direct threat and will persue their legal right to extent permissible by law. Accordingly, and until a license agreement is issued, please remove all AC-3 code and code component material from your website (including all mirror sites, and links to off-site content) as well as all links directing click through traffic to known AC-3 material.

    Please confirm your removal of the AC-3 material and all related links providing direct access to AC-3 products. We thank you in anticipation of your cooperation and encourage you to contact us to discuss licensing options.

    Sincerely,

    Christina L. Bonner
    DOLBY LABORATORIES LICENSING CORPORATION

  • I don't have a problem with this.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fwc ( 168330 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @05:15PM (#2166566)
    Let me put it this way. Dolby spent a lot of time and money coming up with the Technology behind AC3. They also patented the method of encoding/decoding AC3. If you think about the complexity of developing a coding scheme in which even "golden ears" can't really tell the difference, while still doing quite heavy compression then you'll realize that this is probably one of the few areas where a patent is probably justified.

    If it's patented, then you can't reproduce it without paying whatever royalties the patent owner wants, period.

    As much as I feel that things that are obvious should not be patented, Even I agree that something so difficult to do should be afforded patent protection.

    Also, read the tone of the letter. It's "please remove this and let's talk about what options we have, but if you don't we'll have to pursue legal means" as opposed to the "appear in court on this date" method which the people who don't have what I consider "patentable" technology tend to employ.

    • I'm not actually disagreeing with you, but you seem to be ignoring something with patents.

      Patents are not simply for spending money on something that is complicated and good quality, which I'll take on faith AC-3 is. (Think the evils of "sweat of the brow" database copyrights.)

      Patents are for inventions that are non-obvious to an expert working in that field.

      Doing a good job is not enough to deserve a patent. Spending a lot of time and money on a technology is not enough to deserve a patent.

      With the quality of patents that have been coming out of the USPTO in the last 20 years, I no longer automatically trust that they are awarded for the proper reasons. I might support this (or at least not object) if I am first convinced of the validity of the patent. I no longer consider that a given.

  • No problem (Score:3, Funny)

    by r_j_prahad ( 309298 ) <r_j_prahad@@@hotmail...com> on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @05:18PM (#2166579)
    "Licenses are modeled on an adaptive basis relative to your business plan. Our goal is to provide inexpensive licensing arrangements to promote the use and adoption of AC-3 technology."

    So we offer them the same deal Microsoft gave SpyGlass Technologies for their browser - a cut of the profits from all sales.

  • Fight Fire With Fire? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lethyos ( 408045 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @05:33PM (#2166690) Journal
    This is an idea I sputtered on IRC a few moments ago, and really didn't get any interesting conversation. But...

    Basically, would it be possible and hence beneficial for open source and small organizations to proactively restrict licenses on their own software/products on a case by case basis for big corporations? Perhaps the same way that licensing schemes enfroce embargos on high encryption "munitions" from certain countries.

    For example: Dolby tells NetBSD they must have proper licensing to distribute ac3dec. Could the NetBSD project turn around and deny Dolby use of any NetBSD software? How about FreeBSD (or is it Open?) modifying the license of their OS such that Microsoft in particular could not use it on their many BSD production servers (such as Hotmail)?

    It seems childish, but big corporations frequently act the same way. It's fighting fire with fire and I am convinced that many businesses depend on the fruit of open source. The obivous drawbacks on this idea are reduce acceptance in the mainstream and angering the public (Hotmail going away because a BSD project said 'no' to using their OS, for instance).

    If we can't use their stuff, should they be allowed to use "ours'"?

    Thoughts/ideas?

  • Wrong thing to compare this to (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iabervon ( 1971 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @05:35PM (#2166712) Homepage Journal
    This isn't all that similar to the DVD problems, or DMCA problems. This is much like the GIF problems, except that Dolby's patents are probably valid and their behvior is honest.

    You can patent encoding and decoding methods for a non-trivial format. You can then license the methods to people who want to use the format. Then people who want to encode or decode the format (using the standard methods) have to pay you for the privilege or wait until your patent expires.

    A cleanroom implementation is still in violation of the patents if it uses the same methods, because the point of patents is that there be no reason to reinvent something that someone has already invented, unless you come up with a better method.

    The issues with GIF were that the patent holder didn't actually apply for a patent within the required time period after publishing it, published it without a "patent pending" warning (which essentially mean it's prior art), and did not inform the violator of the patent until the method had been incorporated into a 3rd party standard. These don't apply here: Dolby made the standard themselves and never pretended it was not patent-encumbered.

    Of course, Dolby may well be willing to license the patents to FreeBSD (or to the ac3dec people) so long as the license on the software prevents commercial use. If they didn't bother the FreeBSD people, Sony could make a FreeBSD-based player that just used ac3dec and thus avoid needing a license for Dolby's technology. Since Dolby's business is figuring out good ways to encode things, they need to be able to make money at it. On the other hand, they might not mind having their technology used for free in places where it would simply not be used if payment was required; they don't lose any income they'd have, and they might gain income on the encoding side.

  • Dolby Labs is right (Score:5, Informative)

    by elandal ( 9242 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @05:41PM (#2166766) Homepage
    Going against the general Slashdot hivemind, I agree with Dolby in this. AC-3 (Dolby Digital) is patented technology, actually has required research and is very good, effective and inventive .

    White papers are available from Dolby's website, and the technology is free for all to look at, with some exceptions (uses some noise reduction methods not described in the freely available white papers).
    And, if Dolby wants, they can charge license fees. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd grant the LinuxTV team a free license with restrictions. Dolby labs isn't evil, but they're a business and mostly IPR company that licenses technology for manufacturers of consumer electronics. They have their own professional devices, though. So the license might have eg. restrictions about using the technology in an embedded system (eg. Nokia MediaTerminal, but Nokia can afford the license if they want to).

    Also, from my discussion with Dolby Labs at one time when I was considering writing Pro Logic & Pro Logic II codec I would say that they are friendly. They required that they get the code for review before I'm allowed to say that it is Dolby anything compatible, but assured me that if it's free, open source software, they wouldn't charge licensing fees.
    • Interesting. Now can you imagine if Dolby found out some other company was making money from ripping off open source code containing their technology? Would a company rip off open code if they knew that they would also draw the ire of some very large companies as well as an individual?

      ... They required that they get the code for review before I'm allowed to say that it is Dolby anything compatible, but assured me that if it's free, open source software, they wouldn't charge licensing fees.

  • Why NetBSD? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Platinum Dragon ( 34829 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @07:17PM (#2167399) Journal
    It occurs to me that if Dolby wants to force NetBSD not to link to ac3dec on patent grounds, why haven't we heard anything about potential or real legal actions taken against the ac3dec team itself? Technically, they're the people violating any patents Dolby has on AC-3 encoding and decoding, unless Dolby left open a gaping hole one could drive a truck through.

    For now, NetBSD should - as others have suggested - ask Dolby Labs exactly which patents are being violated. After that, they should only do what a court orders them to do; the ball is in Dolby's court, and NetBSD shouldn't be their target. They must know the project does not belong to NetBSD, and it's really an issue that should be taken up with the proper people.

    I really hope this doesn't result in Dolby acting like complete ogres - the ac3dec team isn't trying to make moolah off their decoding implementation or purposefully try to rip Dolby off or something evil. OTOH, if Dolby has patents on the implementation, they have the right under US and WIPO regulations to protect said patent. OYAH (yet another hand), does this mean people can be prevented from tinkering and programming with their computers if it might mean infringing on a patent?

    I suspect IP laws will have to undergo a rather complicated change dealing with different uses of patents on non-physical objects and processes in order to preserve the ability of individuals to tinker with their computers and create free software availabe to all who can use it (a group that, based on my personal experiences, is far smaller than anyone is willing to admit), while still allowing another individual or corporation to protect their patents from being used by profit-oriented competitiors without proper compensation for any profits earned.

    *aside*

    I feel rather dirty after typing that for some reason, possibly because I'm starting to think the current system of patents, and much of IP law, is rather anachronistic. Might have worked fine in 1883, might have worked fine in 1953, might even have worked fine in 1973. Then the Information Revolution hit. At this point, I'd rather try to put a new, fresh IP structure in place, instead of try to put fixes on a rotting structure that's about to collapse under its own weight and is being twisted from its original purposes not to promote innovation and development, but to protect profit and moneymaking at any cost.

    Now, what to replace the current structure with...will take a lot of thought, trial and error. But hey, change is never easy.

    Please route all accusations of communist leanings to /dev/null. Thank you.

    */aside*

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android

Close