Announcement

**RahulSundaram** · 16 April 2015, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Akka View Post

But it is still possible to sue debians user? Some of them is not non-profit.

Yes, it is possible to sue consumers (SCO is an example of a company which did that). Whether it is a valid lawsuit would have to be determined by a court according to the local laws. This is one of the reasons that commercial distributions like Red Hat offer indemnification as part of the subscription.

Open Source Assurance

http://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-assurance

Policies and GuidelinesOpen Source Assurance Red Hat views the protection of our customers as one of our most important priorities. As such, Red Hat offers intellectual property assurances in the event of a claim that open source software provided by Red Hat violates a third party’s intellectual property rights. All Red Hat customers with active, paid Red Hat software subscriptions are eligible for the Open Source Assurance program. The terms of the Open Source Assurance program are contained in the Open Source Assurance Agreement that is available to Red Hat customers via the Red Hat Customer Portal and other authorized Red Hat portals Open Source Assurance is an integral part of a Red Hat subscription and continues for as long as your subscriptions. Below is a list of frequently asked questions about the Open Source Assurance program. FAQs What is the Open Source Assurance program? Open Source Assurance is a Red Hat program designed to protect customers developing and deploying Red Hat solutions. The program includes assurances for customers purchasing Red Hat-branded software subscriptions such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux® and Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform. Who is covered under the Open Source Assurance program? All customers with active, paid Red Hat software subscriptions are eligible for the Open Source Assurance program during the term of the subscription. This includes customers who have purchased subscriptions in direct agreements with Red Hat or through Red Hat channel partners. How does the Open Source Assurance program protect customers? The Open Source Assurance program is designed to allow customers to continue to use their chosen open source solution without interruption in the event of an intellectual property infringement claim. This may include: (i) replacing the infringing portion of the software, (ii) modifying the software so that its use becomes non-infringing, or (iii) obtaining the rights necessary for a customer to continue use of the software. In the event a third party brings a claim for infringement, Red Hat will defend the customer against the claim, pay the amount of a judgment or settlement subject to the stated limitations and, if necessary, procure the right for our customer to continue using the Red Hat Software. Where can I find the Open Source Assurance terms? The specific terms and obligations of the Open Source Assurance program are contained in the Open Source Assurance Agreement that is available to Red Hat customers via the Red Hat Customer Portal or other authorized Red Hat portal. How does a customer sign up for the Open Source Assurance program? A customer can sign up for the Open Source Assurance program by logging in to their Red Hat Customer Portal account with an active software subscription, and accepting the terms of the optional Open Source Assurance Agreement. Is the Open Source Assurance program applicable to all versions of Red Hat Software Products? Yes, all current and future versions of Red Hat-branded software products (for which you have an active, paid subscription) are covered under the program. How long is a subscription covered by the Open Source Assurance program? Customers receive Open Source Assurance program coverage for the duration of an active, paid Red Hat software subscription.

This shifts the legal risk to Red Hat. If you are using non-commercial distributions for commercial purposes, you will have to do the vetting and install only the software you are comfortable with, within your environment. This is especially true for software patents, DMCA etc which are more complicated than verifying the licenses of the components.

**DMJC** · 16 April 2015, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post

Netflix killed the video rental stores.

Nope, the piratebay killed the video rental stores. Netflix only came out here 1-2 weeks ago and DVD rentals had died years ago.

**cjcox** · 16 April 2015, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by not.sure View Post

You probably need to ask a lawyer whether it's (still) illegal or not, which is apparently what they did. There only need to be similar cases having been tossed out by courts to make it legal, and only lawyers are really on top of such things.

It is still illegal. That's why I think it's interesting to know why their lawyers believe they are "safe". The laws have not changed. I just want to know the magic trick used to get around the law rather than the mere hand waving presented in the brief article. I'm very curious.

Sure, I could get a lawyer... he's going to tell me it's illegal. I could try another lawyer, and guess what, he's going to tell me it's illegal too, etc... You can see why I'm curious.

**kurros** · 16 April 2015, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by cjcox View Post

It is still illegal. That's why I think it's interesting to know why their lawyers believe they are "safe". The laws have not changed. I just want to know the magic trick used to get around the law rather than the mere hand waving presented in the brief article. I'm very curious.

Sure, I could get a lawyer... he's going to tell me it's illegal. I could try another lawyer, and guess what, he's going to tell me it's illegal too, etc... You can see why I'm curious.

I think its more that no one gives a hoot about fighting libdvdcss in 2015. As if there ever was. There have never been any legal challenges against libdvdcss that I know of.

**shmerl** · 17 April 2015, 12:07 AM

I don't recommend using deb-multimedia for libdvdcss. Use Videolan repository directly instead: https://www.videolan.org/developers/libdvdcss.html

**curaga** · 17 April 2015, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by cjcox View Post

Uh... everyone. Who has petabyes of drive space at home to house all their HD content? I suppose you could compress it to death... then you'd have HD that rivals 480p in quality.

Who bothers rewatching anything? When you've seen it once you then know the butler did it, and any pleasure re-watching is gone as you remember the plot.

(if it doesn't have plot in the first place, you're better off watching grass grow, more interesting too)

**Luke_Wolf** · 17 April 2015, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by curaga View Post

Who bothers rewatching anything? When you've seen it once you then know the butler did it, and any pleasure re-watching is gone as you remember the plot.

(if it doesn't have plot in the first place, you're better off watching grass grow, more interesting too)

That very much depends. If a plot is simple, then a single pass might be enough. However if a plot is intricate then it's worth it to go over it several times. Sometimes also the way the story is told you have to go back to truly understand. Kara No Kyoukai being an excellent example of this. There can also be enjoyment in noticing the little things I watched through Over the Hedge about a dozen times, just to take in all the small details they put in. Also sometimes the point of the movie isn't the plot but the emotions or the wit, and sometimes... sometimes the point is just to watch stuff get blown up and have fun watching the world burn.

**kmand** · 17 April 2015, 11:00 AM

ZFS on Ubuntu?

Since Ubuntu is downstream from Debian, I wonder if this means that ZFS will eventually integrated into Ubuntu.

**not.sure** · 17 April 2015, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by kurros View Post

I think its more that no one gives a hoot about fighting libdvdcss in 2015. As if there ever was. There have never been any legal challenges against libdvdcss that I know of.

More than that. In some jurisdictions, the law says that it's illegal to circumvent 'effective DRM measures', i.e. you cannot just slap a label 'DRM' on something, and protect it that way. And dvd css never required a lot of knowledge nor CPU power to crack and cannot (could never?) be considered effective or state of the art DRM (of course it's up to judges and courts to pass the final verdict on that). Then it's simply not protected by that law, no matter if anyone would like to sue.

**smitty3268** · 18 April 2015, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by not.sure View Post

More than that. In some jurisdictions, the law says that it's illegal to circumvent 'effective DRM measures', i.e. you cannot just slap a label 'DRM' on something, and protect it that way. And dvd css never required a lot of knowledge nor CPU power to crack and cannot (could never?) be considered effective or state of the art DRM (of course it's up to judges and courts to pass the final verdict on that). Then it's simply not protected by that law, no matter if anyone would like to sue.

Yeah, that theory has been going around for a few years now. That css on dvds was so simple and basic it couldn't possibly be defined as an effective DRM measure designed to stop people from pirating, therefore the law about breaking them doesn't apply.

Further, debian can likely argue that there are some fair-use reasons people could use it for. The same logic that makes bittorrent apps and x264 legal to distribute even if the ultimate user's end up doing illegal things with them may apply here as well. Ultimately, it would probably be up to a judge to determine if they were willfully helping people to infringe, or just providing a product that happened to be possible to abuse that way. Given that no one really cares about pirating DVDs these days (it's generally all HD or else cams), that might be a factor.

Announcement

ZFS & Libdvdcss Should Soon Be In Debian

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment