On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 13:15:49 PM +0100, jdd (jdd@dodin.org) wrote:
M. Fioretti wrote:
No. Why do you say so? How music and video (="content") are spread and licensed has _nothing_ to do with how the *software* to play them is distributed and licensed. In both ways.
because what is played on these sites are mp3's and made by users. I wonder if most of these users have a licence to _build_ mp3's
Exactly. If somebody creates some artistic "content" (for lack of a better word) he or she: * has all the rights to decide how it can be (re) distributed but this * doesn't mean at all that that creator can decide without limits with which technological means this should happen Example: you make your _own_ movie and want everybody in your town to see it for free, all together at the same time. Nobody questions your right to do so or the legality of your choice. But this doesn't enable you to pry open the doors of the closest movie theaters, load your movie in the projector and yell "everybody come in, it's free". Like it or not, this is the current situation with codecs. Check question "How is the MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License organized?" at http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4v-faq.cfm What it says in plain english is that if you put some MPEG4 DIY movie of your own holidays on your own web page together with Google ads, you *have* to pass some of that revenue as royalties to the consortium.
I don't speak of content but of file format. how do you think the uploaded files are made of?
Your original message made me think that you give for granted: "I can distribute my own original content as I please" equal to: "I can do it with whatever software technology as I please". This is not the case. Ciao, Marco -- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org