Automatix -- ethical question

[redadept]

I find it very surprising that Ubuntu CE (a "Christian" distro) has included the Automatix script as part of their package. As I'm sure you are aware, the script downloads and installs codecs and drivers that (for US citizens at least) are not in the public domain -- your screenshots even show the line that merely requires a simple tick in order to install "NON FREE Audio and DVD codecs".

To my knowledge, all the other Ubuntu and Debian distros have very correctly, and probably on the sound advice of copyright lawyers, supplied only software that has been rigorously vetted as legal to own and operate worldwide.

Given the ethical "gray area" of the Automatix script, would you consider removing it from the disto?

[meng]

1. Automatix doesn't make it compulsory to do something illegal.
2. Not all Christians live in the US.
3. I'm sure the ethics of including it have already been considered.

[Keith_Beef]

On the subject of a possible conflict between Christian ethics and the law of the land, would you consider hiding a runaway slave to be a Christian thing to do, even in a land where slavery was still legal?

This is, I admit, an exagerated case, but it is to make the point that the law of the land and a person's view of what is ethical or moral do not necessarily coincide.

And of course, what Meng stated is very true. As I often have to explain to my six-year old son: "just because you can, doesn't mean that you should".


K.

[skymt]

1. Automatix doesn't make it compulsory to do something illegal.
2. Not all Christians live in the US.
3. I'm sure the ethics of including it have already been considered.

1. It makes it easy, and doesn't make it clear that it's illegal.
2. Many Christians do.
3. Maybe not.

[beskyddaren]

1. It makes it easy, and doesn't make it clear that it's illegal.
2. Many Christians do.


1. It's only a grey-are in the US
2. And people who live in the rest of the world should suffer because many christians live in the US?

This is certainly a non-issue. Including Automatix is wrong (imo) for many other reasons, but not this.

[mhancoc7]

I find it very surprising that Ubuntu CE (a "Christian" distro) has included the Automatix script as part of their package. As I'm sure you are aware, the script downloads and installs codecs and drivers that (for US citizens at least) are not in the public domain -- your screenshots even show the line that merely requires a simple tick in order to install "NON FREE Audio and DVD codecs".

To my knowledge, all the other Ubuntu and Debian distros have very correctly, and probably on the sound advice of copyright lawyers, supplied only software that has been rigorously vetted as legal to own and operate worldwide.

Given the ethical "gray area" of the Automatix script, would you consider removing it from the disto?

Well, I have thought a lot about this. I even discussed this quite a bit on the Ubuntu CE Development forum. I found that it was about 50/50 with those who responded. I obviously do not want to encourage doing anything illegal. However, to me the Automatix script is an excellent tool especially for those new to linux. One of the things that pushes people away from linux is the initial configuration issues. Automatix helps solve that problem.

I feel that Automatix makes it very clear what is and isn't legal. If it did something that was illegal everywhere in the entire world then I would not include it. However, there are places in the world that it is not illegal and they should not be penalized because it is illegal somewhere else.

I mean, it is illegal to make copies of movies, but they still sell DVD recorders. My point is that the Automatix script does not encourage or force you to install something that is illegal. It also warns you about it before hand.

I appreciate your concern, and I knew that this would come up. I just hope we can all see the benefits of it and the fact that this is a worldwide project.

Thanks, Jereme

[xyz]

There is nothing illegal and/or unethical about Automatix. I don't understand why this thread's been started in the first place as Automatix makes it all very clear?
Is it maybe the "temptation aspect" that bothers? Just wondering...
Out of curiosity, why not just use Ubuntu? Why the need for a Christian Edition? Please don't take me wrong; these are only questions as I'd like to understand...if I can.
Are we going to have a FootballPlayer or a Jewish Edition?...so to speak.
Why be apart?

[mhancoc7]

There is nothing illegal and/or unethical about Automatix. I don't understand why this thread's been started in the first place as Automatix makes it all very clear?
Is it maybe the "temptation aspect" that bothers? Just wondering...
Out of curiosity, why not just use Ubuntu? Why the need for a Christian Edition? Please don't take me wrong; these are only questions as I'd like to understand...if I can.
Are we going to have a FootballPlayer or a Jewish Edition?...so to speak.
Why be apart?

This is from the projects site FAQ page:

Q: Why should I use the Ubuntu Christian Edition if I can install the same software to the default Ubuntu?

A: The concept behind the Ubuntu Christian Edition is not to deviate from the Ubuntu community. It is intended to draw a larger Christian base to the already thriving community of Ubuntu users. The Ubuntu Christian Edition simply makes it easier for Christians who are new to Linux to see the power of Ubuntu combined with the added benefit of having the best available Linux Christian software pre-installed.

Jereme

[aysiu]

Aren't the only illegal-in-the-US packages w32codecs and libdvdcss2?

Does Automatix force you to install these? If the answer is "no," then I don't see what sort of ethical issues are at stake.

[JamesB]

If automatix makes it clear, which I believe it does, what is and isn't possibly illigal, then leave it in, otherwise you'd also have to leave out the Sword Bible software as that has a facility to download books, bibles etc that are illigal in some countries... And then there's SCO's claim that large chuncks of Linux was 'stolen' and shouldnt be used... which would mean that Ubuntu would be illigal so should we stop using Ubuntu on the grounds that its possibly illigal... just how far is this gonna go...

I wish this project God's blessing

[MiKuS]

just so you people know, i'm from Australia and i'm not a christian, but i respect christianity aas a whole. Now that thats out of the way: Australia also practices the copy write laws of the USA due to free trade aggrements thus it's effectively illegal to install these codecs, but the problem is: i buy music legit, in mp3 form how am i ment to be able to play my music through my computer without mp3 codecs?

in all honnesty i think that what this script does (all of it) should be legal. But it's stupid to break a law because "it's stupid" Anyway, i'll leave it there.

[xyz]

Thanks for the explanation,mhancoc7.
Yes Automatix is absolutely clear: in the US, it's illegal; the rest of the world can unless specified otherwise. Period! No reason to keep posting here and long live Whatever Ubuntu Edition!

[redadept]

"One of the things that pushes people away from linux is the initial configuration issues. Automatix helps solve that problem."

Interesting responses ...

I'll repeat my initial observation -- none of the major Ubuntu distributions has seen fit to include the Automatix script. Does this mean that Shuttleworth et. al. don't know about "initial configuration issues"? Or is there a baseline legality that the major Ubuntu developers are committed to following?

There is still in my mind a fundamental ethical question about providing an opportunity *with a distribution* for users to violate the copyright laws of their particular country. Yes, there are warnings, but how many people do you think will choose to honor copyright laws rather than have full multimedia capabilities on their brand new Linux toy?? ("... the laws are stupid" is an excellent example of rationalization)

For many, this is certainly a non-issue. For the Chrisitians who provided this distro, and are encouraged by their primary scriptures to "avoid all appearance of evil", this very well might be a questionable decision.

[skymt]

Thanks for the explanation,mhancoc7.
Yes Automatix is absolutely clear: in the US, it's illegal; the rest of the world can unless specified otherwise. Period! No reason to keep posting here and long live Whatever Ubuntu Edition!

See the post directly above yours for why that's wrong.

[mhancoc7]

Again, I say this.

Automatix is a very popular Ubuntu tool that I feel should be preinstalled. I decided to include it because of its value to the end user. I am fully aware that it can be used to install some codecs that are not legal in every country, but they are not illegal in every country either. Automatix, in my mind, makes it very clear about the possible legal implications and it is, in the end, up to the user to do the right thing. I do not believe that it is anymore of a temptation to sin than that of a VCR or DVD-Recorder. I mean if I own one of those I could copy illegal movies. So should I not have a VCR or DVD-Recorder. I know this is not exactly the same, but I think you get the point.

Put simply, I think that Automatix has enough value to the end user and since it is made clear during installation of the possible legal implications and it does not force you to install anything that it is a valuable addition to Ubuntu CE.

Thanks, Jereme

[whatrucrazy]

oh please! didn't your own saviour resist temptation, and isn't such one of the core tenents of your beliefs?
And more to the point Automatix is not a part of any distro's main install, you have to go out of your way to get it, run it, then CHOOSE TO COMMIT EVIL. Again isn't that another core aspect of your faith, humans are born with free will and must choose THEMSELVES whether or not to sin?

And if we are running ubuntu in terms of religion, doesn't old-school muslim faith ban the use of 'depictive' images of any sort, ie. only geometric patterns are allowable? maybe we should take all the images out of ubuntu? Perhaps we should include a copy of the torah for all the Jewish users? make sure no cows were harmed in the making of this distro for Hindus? Make sure there are no aspects of ubuntu that promote the eating of beans so Pythagoreans don't get upset?

Perhaps you should just respect a christian users right to make up their own minds about the morality of copyright laws, suh as the plowshares group who damaged a stealth bomber in ireland, the elderly christians that commit trespass at the school of the americas and recieve 6 month prison sentences each year, the christians against war that attempted to inspect the secret pine gap spy base in australia... etc etc.
How about you actually consider the complexities of this issue, which the basis of has been discussed for over a thousand years by your own theologians, than jump in and say something should be 'banned', or 'removed'.

This is such a ridiculous thread, i can't even believe i'm responding. Prerhaps you should consider the term 'secular state' and do some reading about your own religion.
OH, and remember that a world exists outside of US christian citizens - and we don't much care for your authoritarian, absolutist dogmatic opinions.

[mhancoc7]

oh please! didn't your own saviour resist temptation, and isn't such one of the core tenents of your beliefs?
And more to the point Automatix is not a part of any distro's main install, you have to go out of your way to get it, run it, then CHOOSE TO COMMIT EVIL. Again isn't that another core aspect of your faith, humans are born with free will and must choose THEMSELVES whether or not to sin?

And if we are running ubuntu in terms of religion, doesn't old-school muslim faith ban the use of 'depictive' images of any sort, ie. only geometric patterns are allowable? maybe we should take all the images out of ubuntu? Perhaps we should include a copy of the torah for all the Jewish users? make sure no cows were harmed in the making of this distro for Hindus? Make sure there are no aspects of ubuntu that promote the eating of beans so Pythagoreans don't get upset?

Perhaps you should just respect a christian users right to make up their own minds about the morality of copyright laws, suh as the plowshares group who damaged a stealth bomber in ireland, the elderly christians that commit trespass at the school of the americas and recieve 6 month prison sentences each year, the christians against war that attempted to inspect the secret pine gap spy base in australia... etc etc.
How about you actually consider the complexities of this issue, which the basis of has been discussed for over a thousand years by your own theologians, than jump in and say something should be 'banned', or 'removed'.

This is such a ridiculous thread, i can't even believe i'm responding. Prerhaps you should consider the term 'secular state' and do some reading about your own religion.
OH, and remember that a world exists outside of US christian citizens - and we don't much care for your authoritarian, absolutist dogmatic opinions.

Easy!!

I also do not believe that there is anything unethical with including Automatix. However, lets please not let this go too far. The poster asked the question and I respectfully gave my opinion. Automatix is going to continue to be included. There is no reason to go off on a religious rant.

This is an Open Source project that just happens to be geared towards Christians. All Christians, not just those in the US. I am a US citizen, living in Japan. We are not all authoritarian in our approach to others.

One of the goals of this project is of course to bring Linux to Christians, but I do not want it to divide us as a community of Ubuntu Linux users.

This is always going to come up since there is no denying the fact that religion can be a sensitive subject. But lets please keep it civil and try to stay focused on the technical aspects.

Thanks, Jereme

[aysiu]

Now that thats out of the way: Australia also practices the copy write laws of the USA due to free trade aggrements thus it's effectively illegal to install these codecs, but the problem is: i buy music legit, in mp3 form how am i ment to be able to play my music through my computer without mp3 codecs? I don't believe it's illegal to install MP3 codecs yourself (or use a tool such as Automatix or apt-get to install them.

It might be illegal, however, to distribute those codecs preinstalled with a distro.

As I stated earlier, as far as I know, libdvdcss2 and w32codecs are the only illegal packages. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this.

[Lord Illidan]

And more to the point Automatix is not a part of any distro's main install, you have to go out of your way to get it, run it, then CHOOSE TO COMMIT EVIL. Again isn't that another core aspect of your faith, humans are born with free will and must choose THEMSELVES whether or not to sin?

Is getting these codecs a sin?? Evil?? Come on...

[mhancoc7]

o
And more to the point Automatix is not a part of any distro's main install...

Well, this simply isn't true. It is included in Ubuntu CE's main install. I think that is the reason for the whole discussion. The original poster does not agree that it should be included in Ubuntu CE.

Just wanted to clear that up a little.

Jereme

[LaserJock]

Also to be clear, I work with a lot of Ubuntu developers and virtually none of them cite the "legality" issue as their primary concern with Automatix. The main issue is that it is somewhat of a hack (--assume-yes --force-yes is very bad as is messing around with a users sources.list to add 3rd party repos) and has been know to completely break many peoples computers.

Automatix, and many other scripts like it, are being used as a workarounds to circumvent problems people find in Ubuntu. People assume they can't be solved within the distro itself, which is just not true at all. Rather than trying to patch up Ubuntu with things outside of Ubuntu itself it is much more helpful for people to work on getting needed changes made in Ubuntu.

I would much rather have seen the Automatix and EasyUbuntu authors work on solutions that wouldn't break people's systems and could be shared with everybody, by default. If something really does need to be there by default then it should be default in Ubuntu.

-LaserJock

P.S. There is an specification that was much talked over during the Paris developer summit (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommonCustomizations) who's assignee is Matt Zimmerman (CTO of Canonical and Ubuntu release manager) so this is something that the community and devs are certainly aware of.

[aysiu]

LaserJock, much of what Automatix does will never be "fixed" in Ubuntu, as those proprietary codecs and proprietary software that Automatix installs are left out of Ubuntu as a matter of policy, not lack of technical know-how or time for implementation. Ubuntu is committed to open source software and will not come with proprietary software preinstalled or the Multiverse repositories enabled by default.

If people want those things "out of the box," they should use Mepis or PCLinuxOS. Otherwise, they can install them themselves... or use a "hack" like Automatix or Easy Ubuntu or BUMPS to do it for them.

[LaserJock]

There really are fixes though. For instance, for the codecs when a media player can't play a certain file type it can pop up a window indicating which package needs to be installed (I believe multiverse has everything needed for most all codecs) and why they aren't installed by default rather than really cryptic error messages. There is also the documentation shipped with Ubuntu that shows you how to set up this stuff, it really isn't very hard, and why it needs to be done. The Ubuntu dev community is also working a lot on 3rd party inclusion (the dapper-commercial repo is on example) so there really shouldn't be a need for Automatix et al. I can see it as a short term solution but it is not the way to move Ubuntu forward.

Overall, one of my problems with Automatix and EasyUbuntu is that it they are, in essence, saying to the user "Ubuntu developers don't care about providing users with with what they need." Even if there are legitimate reasons for not including something, it is still better handled through the distro development proccess rather than add-on scripts.

Anyway, I suppose we don't need to rehash all of this stuff. I believe Automatix will be made obsolete by Edgy or Edgy+1 anyway.

-LaserJock

[JamesB]

It is legal to have the codecs and use them IF you have a legal version of MS windows, and it doesn't matter which version. I refere to a thread I used to install the codecs on to the church laptop:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=75278&highlight=w32codecs

Enjoy

[aysiu]

I get what you're saying now. Well, the Ubuntu developers and I have a disagreement on how Ubuntu should be developed. They live in an imaginary world where bug #1 has already been fixed and regular users (or even power users) don't need proprietary software. The truth is that only about 5% of Ubuntu users on these forums (and we're talking regulars here--the type who hang out and answer polls in the Ubuntu Cafe; not the type who sign up, ask a question, and then leave) use only open source software and only open source codecs.

The vast majority of people switching to Ubuntu will have MP3s and will want to view Flash websites or streaming video/audio. I happen to like Ubuntu a lot, but I don't see how it can take off without including proprietary software. My guess is that ImpiLinux, Mepis, or some other Ubuntu-based distro will be the one that really takes off. Ubuntu is a solid base, but most people don't care about the principles of free software.

I understand not including those things right away, but, as you said, cryptic errors just leave people confused--links to how to install things are far more practical.

[mysticrider92]

If people want Automatix it is only a few clicks away, and you can take it off if you don't want it. I don't really understand the thing about the DVD codecs and all of that, I mean you should be allowed to at least play DVD's out of the box. Is it wrong that I got one of the packages from somewhere else? I should be able to watch movies if we own them. :confused:

[aysiu]

I mean you should be allowed to at least play DVD's out of the box. Is it wrong that I got one of the packages from somewhere else? I should be able to watch movies if we own them. :confused: Go ask the US government.

[LaserJock]

ok, but this is what is I'm not understanding. You can play mp3's and dvds and do Flash, etc. using Ubuntu repositories. Multiverse is for closed source packages. The dapper-commercial repository that Canonical set up is for this sort of thing. The devs are not in a dream world, they are just trying to do things in the most secure and stable way possible. Many use Opera, and other closed source apps. They are realistic.

Anyway, I realize that Automatix grew out of a need by users, however I think those needs are being worked on and most (if not all) are being met with dapper and edgy.

-LaserJock

[aysiu]

When I say they are in a dream world, I'm talking about this from the Ubuntu website: Immediately Useful
When you finish your Ubuntu installation your system is immediately usable. On the desktop you have a full set of business productivity applications, internet applications, drawing and graphics applications, and games. Or for the server you get just what you need to get up and running, with nothing you don't. There are thousands of additional pieces of software that are just a few clicks away, but we've done the hard work to get the basics in place easily and effectively. And I'm saying that Ubuntu is immediately useful only to those who are in the 5% or less club--the ones who are not tied into proprietary formats.

[mysticrider92]

Go ask the US government.

I don't see why I need to ask my government for the right to do something that I should already be able to do. Why is the codec not free in the first place? I downloaded the libdvdread3 package (as far as I know that is free) and typed one line in terminal and that package installed the libdvdcss package for me. Is this wrong?

My big question here is why can't I use stuff I own? This is about as weird as not owning the iTunes songs that you pay for and Sony's rootkit cd's. I am a Christian and I don't see anything in the Bible that says I can't watch DVD's that I have paid for (unless they are inapproprate). Am I in the wrong for not knowing about this or is my government for not making it clearer. I just want to be able to watch movies on my PC. ](*,)

[edit] Here is some information about the package that I thought was interesting: http://developers.videolan.org/libdvdcss/. Read line three under Features.

[aysiu]

The codec is free. It's cost-free and open source. It's also illegal. So when you want to know "why can't I use stuff I own?" the only direction you should be pointing your question is the US government. No one on these forums is stopping you. The US government is the one making the codec illegal.

[mysticrider92]

The codec is free. It's cost-free and open source. It's also illegal. So when you want to know "why can't I use stuff I own?" the only direction you should be pointing your question is the US government. No one on these forums is stopping you. The US government is the one making the codec illegal.

Then I should be able to use it unless the FBI comes to harras me. Ok, thanks.

[aysiu]

Then I should be able to use it unless the FBI comes to harras me. Ok, thanks.
Number of cases in which the FBI beat down a Linux user's door and yelled, "You're under arrest for using the DeCSS codec to view on your Linux computer the movies you've legally purchased. You'd better come with us." -- currently zero.

[mhancoc7]

I want to be sure I say this. I think the Ubuntu developers are AWESOME! I choose Ubuntu for the base of Ubuntu CE because it is the best, IMHO.

I decided to include Automatix because I believe that many of the users that I am targeting will be coming from Windows and may have never used Linux. I want it to be as smooth of a transition as possible. If Ubuntu ever comes ready to run DVDs, mp3s, and such then there will be no need for Automatix. I find it useful and I have never had an issue with it. I think there are more users out there, especially those that come from Windows, that just want it to work. They are not concerned with OSS and its principals. They just want to be able to watch the next viral video from YouTube like the guys on treadmills. :)

Also Automatix does not use --force-yes.

God Bless, Jereme

[mysticrider92]

I agree with Ubuntu being one of the best Linux versions availible. I also really like your Christian Edition (I think my dad likes it too, he is planning to dual boot his laptop).

About the FBI coming, I mean that as more of a joke.

[Keith_Beef]

The codec is free. It's cost-free and open source. It's also illegal. So when you want to know "why can't I use stuff I own?" the only direction you should be pointing your question is the US government. No one on these forums is stopping you. The US government is the one making the codec illegal.

So the codec is a clean-room implementation?

What is the law making the distribution or use of this codec illegal?

If ingorance of the lw is no defence, then the information about the law and its interpretation must be freely available. Otherwise, the rule of law cannot be held to be democratic; it becomes dictatorship.


K.

[aysiu]

http://www.mpaa.org/DVD_FAQ.asp

[enopepsoo]

It passes the ethical issue on to the user, where it belongs ;).

Let them make up their minds, just because it is a cristian version doesn't make it any different than anything else.

Anyways, UbuntuCE is open source, if anyone has an issue they can fork and make Ubuntu Ethical CE.:-#

[zxee]

The DMCA has been quite controversial and I don't know if even those well versed in copyright laws can clearly define the legalities of digital media use. Check out the examples in the second to last paragraph here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr1201
And for a summary of the actual DMCA: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmca1.htm

[mysticrider92]

So this is only illegal because it can be used to rip dvds, only beacuse DVD ripping is illegal? Sounds like a classic case of honest people having to suffer because of the dis-honest people...

[redadept]

Distrowatch linked recently to a very lucid essay from the Ubuntu developers detailing their views on proprietary and free software, as well as several good arguments (not necessarily ethical) against using scripts such as Automatix. It makes good reading for anyone interested in this thread.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommonCustomizations

It includes the following statement:

"A package such as w32codecs containing the proprietary Windows multimedia codecs can only be used legally by users who also have purchased a Windows license which allows the use of these codecs. Therefore Ubuntu cannot ship or hold such a package in its repositories."

It seems clear to me therefore that while anyone is free to take the work done by the Ubuntu team and mix-and-match with whatever they want (MEPIS is a good example), a continued claim to offer "an Ubuntu distro" should include a respect for the original developer's goals, ideals and mandates.

[mhancoc7]

Distrowatch linked recently to a very lucid essay from the Ubuntu developers detailing their views on proprietary and free software, as well as several good arguments (not necessarily ethical) against using scripts such as Automatix. It makes good reading for anyone interested in this thread.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommonCustomizations

It includes the following statement:

"A package such as w32codecs containing the proprietary Windows multimedia codecs can only be used legally by users who also have purchased a Windows license which allows the use of these codecs. Therefore Ubuntu cannot ship or hold such a package in its repositories."

It seems clear to me therefore that while anyone is free to take the work done by the Ubuntu team and mix-and-match with whatever they want (MEPIS is a good example), a continued claim to offer "an Ubuntu distro" should include a respect for the original developer's goals, ideals and mandates.

I agree, sort of. I have included Automatix, not the codecs themselves. I am simply making it even easier for the user to tweak there systems. I believe we should trust the user to make the decision when it comes to there setup. They can just as easily decide to not use or uninstall Automatix as they could to use it. The other thing is that I think it is obvious that there is a need for Automatix or it would not be so popular. If Ubuntu could play dvds and mp3s out of the box then I would not necessarily include Automatix.

Thanks, Jereme

[cjm5229]

Most of the arguments about Automatix being a hack and using force yes and breaking computers, came from the original version that was used in Breezy. It has come a long way since then, Those are arguments that are pretty much invalid now. As far as the "Illegal codecs" are concerned, How many of us living in the US that are using Linux, do not have a legal copy of Windows around somewhere? In other words, most of these arguments against Automatix being included are the same unfounded, illinformed, prejudices, that have been used by everyone complaning about Ubuntu CE since the beginning. It's Jereme's Project and he has the right to do it the way he wishes, unless "Free Open Source Software" has a clause in it, that it is only free if you are are not a Christian, and don't use Automatix.
God Bless You.

[Adamant1988]

I think it is ironic that Automatix is included when the original founder claims to be a "god to hundreds of thousands". But past that I don't see a problem with including it, the script doesn't make you do anything illegal. Saying that it is would be like saying (I'm from west virginia so deal with the analogy) that most hunting equipment stores need to be shut down because you can buy guns there that can kill people.

[mhancoc7]

I think it is ironic that Automatix is included when the original founder claims to be a "god to hundreds of thousands".

:confused:

[Adamant1988]

lol, I won't get into it on the forums, but that is a paraphrase from a conversation he had with us in the IRC channel.

[kberglun]

I agree that this is just like so many other things in life (and IT-world) You get opportunities to choose what's easy and "free", but wrong. The last time I used automatix I think I had to check the box to actually choose to install the files. So do you like always do (!?) choose not to commit crime.

[cobray]

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

[handy]

I am truly grateful to the Automatix team, they have made my computing life so much easier, less frustrating, more satisfying & productive. That's me & many other new & not so new users too!

Quote from Common Customisations wiki:

"Official Automatix uses apt-get --assume-yes but does not use apt-get --force-yes by policy. The German version is not made, maintained or officially supported by the Automatix Team."

IMHO: By the time we are using Edgy+1 all & more that Automatix does now will be incorporated into the OS. The only things left out will be illegal to distribute in the US & Australia.

Automatix & the other customisation scripts have been, & are, filling the gaps whilst the developers take the time required to craft our wonderful OS...

It's all good :KS

[aysiu]

Was it unethical for God to make the tree of the knowledge of good and evil available in Eden?

Why, then, would it be unethical to make Automatix available?

[aysiu]

Was it unethical for God to make the tree of the knowledge of good and evil available in Eden?

Why, then, would it be unethical to make Automatix available?

[deweese]

So this is only illegal because it can be used to rip dvds, only beacuse DVD ripping is illegal? Sounds like a classic case of honest people having to suffer because of the dis-honest people...

If you do it in good faith and don't pirate it is legal. I read the law.

[Raphink]

You read the law of all countries deweese?

[aysiu]

If you do it in good faith and don't pirate it is legal. I read the law.
I don't think you have read the law. You live in Brooklyn, NY? Then, it's illegal.

It's definitely illegal in the United States.

Read these:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/dvd-discuss-faq.html#ss2.4.6
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2006/07/a_fully_licensed_dmca_complian.html

[kingbilly]

There are plenty of unethical things you can do with a computer. Maybe the whole operating system should be removed, but then, even with a useless computer, you could still pick it up and whip it at someone's head.

I'm at a christian college right now(Messiah in Pennsylvania) in the computer lab and I can hear students behind me for a club trying to make a background for the club's web page. They are using copyrighted pictures and throwing em down in MS paint. Using someone else's work is unethical but they didn't know any better. You should learn from this story and remove the web browser from UbuntuCE so people can't steal other people's pictures for their own original work.

[arnieboy]

In a week or slightly more, we will phase out Automatix for Dapper and replace it with Automatix2.
UbuntuCE devs: we will keep you updated

[mhancoc7]

In a week or slightly more, we will phase out Automatix for Dapper and replace it with Automatix2.
UbuntuCE devs: we will keep you updated
Thanks arnieboy,
I look forward to seeing Automatix2. I am sure that it will be awesome.
Jereme

[arnieboy]

Thanks arnieboy,
I look forward to seeing Automatix2. I am sure that it will be awesome.
Jereme
Jereme:
If you havent checked it out already, AX2 for Dapper i386 (though currently beta) is as good as stable and can be checked out as follows (if the AX repositories are added):
sudo apt-get install automatix2
A list of features of AX2 can be found here:
http://getautomatix.com/wiki/index.php?title=Automatix2_for_%28K%2CX%29Ubuntu_6 .06_i386
we are currently working on 6.06 amd64 version and will shortly move to 6.10 i386 and amd64 followed by 6.06 ppc and 6.10 ppc.

[mhancoc7]

@arnieboy

Looks great. I am glad to see the continued development of Automatix. The ability to uninstall stuff is a real move forward. I will probably wait for the final release to try it.

Thanks, Jereme

[arnieboy]

automatix2 for Dapper i386 is now final. automatix for Dapper i386 has been phased out.
automatix2 for Dapper amd64 is almost ready.
automatix2 for Dapper ppc will not be supported yet.

[mhancoc7]

automatix2 for Dapper i386 is now final. automatix for Dapper i386 has been phased out.
automatix2 for Dapper amd64 is almost ready.
automatix2 for Dapper ppc will not be supported yet.

I just installed it and it looks great. It works perfectly and looks super nice.

Is it necessary to uninstall Automatix1 before installing Automatix2? I will be adding it to the next release of Ubuntu CE. Is there a timeline for when Automatix1 will be completely phased out for Dapper? I am just curious as to how soon I need to get the next release of Ubuntu CE out.

Thanks, Jereme

[arnieboy]

I just installed it and it looks great. It works perfectly and looks super nice.

Is it necessary to uninstall Automatix1 before installing Automatix2? I will be adding it to the next release of Ubuntu CE. Is there a timeline for when Automatix1 will be completely phased out for Dapper? I am just curious as to how soon I need to get the next release of Ubuntu CE out.

Thanks, Jereme
Its not necessary to uninstall AX1 to install AX2. However, AX1 for Dapper i386 has now been removed from the AX repos.
AX2 for Dapper amd64 final release will be made in a day or less (and AX1 for Dapper amd64 will be phased out immediately after that).
AX2 for ppc will be waiting for a while (because we are woefully short of manpower right now and Edgy is higher up on the priority list).

[mhancoc7]

Its not necessary to uninstall AX1 to install AX2. However, AX1 for Dapper i386 has now been removed from the AX repos.
AX2 for Dapper amd64 final release will be made in a day or less (and AX1 for Dapper amd64 will be phased out immediately after that).
AX2 for ppc will be waiting for a while (because we are woefully short of manpower right now and Edgy is higher up on the priority list).

Thanks!

Keep up the great work!

Jereme

[sKuarecircle]

All i am saying, is that it isn't Illegal where i am

[h2gofast]

Distrowatch linked recently to a very lucid essay from the Ubuntu developers detailing their views on proprietary and free software, as well as several good arguments (not necessarily ethical) against using scripts such as Automatix. It makes good reading for anyone interested in this thread.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommonCustomizations

It includes the following statement:

"A package such as w32codecs containing the proprietary Windows multimedia codecs can only be used legally by users who also have purchased a Windows license which allows the use of these codecs. Therefore Ubuntu cannot ship or hold such a package in its repositories."

It seems clear to me therefore that while anyone is free to take the work done by the Ubuntu team and mix-and-match with whatever they want (MEPIS is a good example), a continued claim to offer "an Ubuntu distro" should include a respect for the original developer's goals, ideals and mandates.


It's open source, we can do whatever we want with it, except break the gpl. We might not be able to call it ubuntu, but once it's out there, all anyone can do is complain about what should be.

[Johnsie]

If you don't think automatix is ethical then dont use it. As with everything else in life it's your choice what decisions you make and there will always be someone who disagrees with you.

Some of us think that it is ethical and you shouldn't judge us as immoral. The codecs are legal where I live and I would hate to lose out just because of an unfair law passed in America. I think Automatix is ethical because it gives people the tools they need to hear and spread the word of God. I think the US government is unethical because it passes laws which try to prevent this. Not all laws are right, especially when they stand in the way of spreading or hearing the gospel.

[deweese]

I don't think you have read the law. You live in Brooklyn, NY? Then, it's illegal.

It's definitely illegal in the United States.

Read these:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/dvd-discuss-faq.html#ss2.4.6
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2006/07/a_fully_licensed_dmca_complian.html

THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998
U.S. Copyright Office Summary
December 1998
INTRODUCTION
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)1 was signed into law by
President Clinton on October 28, 1998. The legislation implements two 1996 World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty and
the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The DMCA also addresses a
number of other significant copyright-related issues.
The DMCA is divided into five titles:
Title I, the “WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms
!
Treaties Implementation Act of 1998,” implements the WIPO
treaties.
Title II, the “Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation
!
Act,” creates limitations on the liability of online service providers for
copyright infringement when engaging in certain types of activities.
Title III, the “Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance
!
Act,” creates an exemption for making a copy of a computer program
by activating a computer for purposes of maintenance or repair.
Title IV contains six miscellaneous provisions, relating to the
!
functions of the Copyright Office, distance education, the exceptions
in the Copyright Act for libraries and for making ephemeral recordings,
“webcasting” of sound recordings on the Internet, and the applicability
of collective bargaining agreement obligations in the case of transfers
of rights in motion pictures.
Title V, the “Vessel Hull Design Protection Act,” creates a new form
!
of protection for the design of vessel hulls.
This memorandum summarizes briefly each title of the DMCA. It provides
merely an overview of the law’s provisions; for purposes of length and readability a
significant amount of detail has been omitted. A complete understanding of any
provision of the DMCA requires reference to the text of the legislation itself.
1
Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (Oct. 28, 1998).
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 1
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
TITLE I: WIPO TREATY IMPLEMENTATION
Title I implements the WIPO treaties. First, it makes certain technical
amendments to U.S. law, in order to provide appropriate references and links to the
treaties. Second, it creates two new prohibitions in Title 17 of the U.S. Code—one on
circumvention of technological measures used by copyright owners to protect their
works and one on tampering with copyright management information—and adds civil
remedies and criminal penalties for violating the prohibitions. In addition, Title I
requires the U.S. Copyright Office to perform two joint studies with the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of
Commerce (NTIA).
Technical Amendments
National Eligibility
The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) each require member countries to provide protection to
certain works from other member countries or created by nationals of other member
countries. That protection must be no less favorable than that accorded to domestic
works.
Section 104 of the Copyright Act establishes the conditions of eligibility for
protection under U.S. law for works from other countries. Section 102(b) of the
DMCA amends section 104 of the Copyright Act and adds new definitions to section
101 of the Copyright Act in order to extend the protection of U.S. law to those works
required to be protected under the WCT and the WPPT.
Restoration of Copyright Protection
Both treaties require parties to protect preexisting works from other member
countries that have not fallen into the public domain in the country of origin through
the expiry of the term of protection. A similar obligation is contained in both the
Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement. In 1995 this obligation was imple-
mented in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, creating a new section 104A in the
Copyright Act to restore protection to works from Berne or WTO member countries
that are still protected in the country of origin, but fell into the public domain in the
United States in the past because of a failure to comply with formalities that then
existed in U.S. law, or due to a lack of treaty relations. Section 102(c) of the DMCA
amends section 104A to restore copyright protection in the same circumstances to
works from WCT and WPPT member countries.
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 2
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
Registration as a Prerequisite to Suit
The remaining technical amendment relates to the prohibition in both treaties
against conditioning the exercise or enjoyment of rights on the fulfillment of
formalities. Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act requires claims to copyright to be
registered with the Copyright Office before a lawsuit can be initiated by the copyright
owner, but exempts many foreign works in order to comply with existing treaty
obligations under the Berne Convention. Section 102(d) of the DMCA amends section
411(a) by broadening the exemption to cover all foreign works.
Technological Protection and Copyright Management Systems
Each of the WIPO treaties contains virtually identical language obligating
member states to prevent circumvention of technological measures used to protect
copyrighted works, and to prevent tampering with the integrity of copyright
management information. These obligations serve as technological adjuncts to the
exclusive rights granted by copyright law. They provide legal protection that the
international copyright community deemed critical to the safe and efficient exploitation
of works on digital networks.
Circumvention of Technological Protection Measures
General approach
Article 11 of the WCT states:
Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protec-
tion and effective legal remedies against the circumven-
tion of effective technological measures that are used
by authors in connection with the exercise of their
rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and
that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are
not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted
by law.
Article 18 of the WPPT contains nearly identical language.
Section 103 of the DMCA adds a new chapter 12 to Title 17 of the U.S. Code.
New section 1201 implements the obligation to provide adequate and effective
protection against circumvention of technological measures used by copyright owners
to protect their works.
Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that
prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 3
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
unauthorized copying2 of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that
are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain
circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision
prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the
second.
This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued
ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use
under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumvent-
ing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use
doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of
circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.
Section 1201 proscribes devices or services that fall within any one of the
following three categories:
they are primarily designed or produced to circumvent;
!
they have only limited commercially significant purpose or use other
!
than to circumvent; or
they are marketed for use in circumventing.
!
No mandate
Section 1201 contains language clarifying that the prohibition on circumvention
devices does not require manufacturers of consumer electronics, telecommunications
or computing equipment to design their products affirmatively to respond to any
particular technological measure. (Section 1201(c)(3)). Despite this general ‘no
mandate’ rule, section 1201(k) does mandate an affirmative response for one particular
type of technology: within 18 months of enactment, all analog videocassette recorders
must be designed to conform to certain defined technologies, commonly known as
Macrovision, currently in use for preventing unauthorized copying of analog
videocassettes and certain analog signals. The provision prohibits rightholders from
applying these specified technologies to free television and basic and extended basic tier
cable broadcasts.
2
“Copying” is used in this context as a short-hand for the exercise of any of the exclus-
ive rights of an author under section 106 of the Copyright Act. Consequently, a technological
measure that prevents unauthorized distribution or public performance of a work would fall
in this second category.
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 4
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
Savings clauses
Section 1201 contains two general savings clauses. First, section 1201(c)(1)
states that nothing in section 1201 affects rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to
copyright infringement, including fair use. Second, section 1201(c)(2) states that
nothing in section 1201 enlarges or diminishes vicarious or contributory copyright
infringement.
Exceptions
Finally, the prohibitions contained in section 1201 are subject to a number of
exceptions. One is an exception to the operation of the entire section, for law
enforcement, intelligence and other governmental activities. (Section 1201(e)). The
others relate to section 1201(a), the provision dealing with the category of technological
measures that control access to works.
The broadest of these exceptions, section 1201(a)(1)(B)-(E), establishes an
ongoing administrative rule-making proceeding to evaluate the impact of the
prohibition against the act of circumventing such access-control measures. This
conduct prohibition does not take effect for two years. Once it does, it is subject to
an exception for users of a work which is in a particular class of works if they are or are
likely to be adversely affected by virtue of the prohibition in making noninfringing uses.
The applicability of the exemption is determined through a periodic rulemaking by the
Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who is
to consult with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information.
The six additional exceptions are as follows:
1. Nonprofit library, archive and educational institution exception
(section 1201(d)). The prohibition on the act of circumvention of
access control measures is subject to an exception that permits
nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions to circumvent
solely for the purpose of making a good faith determination as to
whether they wish to obtain authorized access to the work.
2. Reverse engineering (section 1201(f)). This exception permits
circumvention, and the development of technological means for such
circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a
copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and
analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability
with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under
copyright law.
3. Encryption research (section 1201(g)). An exception for encryption
research permits circumvention of access control measures, and the
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 5
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
development of the technological means to do so, in order to identify
flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies.
4. Protection of minors (section 1201(h)). This exception allows a court
applying the prohibition to a component or part to consider the
necessity for its incorporation in technology that prevents access of
minors to material on the Internet.
5. Personal privacy (section 1201(i)). This exception permits circumven-
tion when the technological measure, or the work it protects, is capable
of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information about
the online activities of a natural person.
6. Security testing (section 1201(j)). This exception permits circumven-
tion of access control measures, and the development of technological
means for such circumvention, for the purpose of testing the security
of a computer, computer system or computer network, with the
authorization of its owner or operator.
Each of the exceptions has its own set of conditions on its applicability, which
are beyond the scope of this summary.
Integrity of Copyright Management Information
Article 12 of the WCT provides in relevant part:
Contracting Parties shall provide adequate and effective
legal remedies against any person knowingly performing
any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to
civil remedies having reasonable grounds to know, that
it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringe-
ment of any right covered by this Treaty or the Berne
Convention:
(i) to remove or alter any electronic rights
management information without authority;
(ii) to distribute, import for distribution, broad-
cast or communicate to the public, without authority,
works or copies of works knowing that electronic rights
management information has been removed or altered
without authority.
Article 19 of the WPPT contains nearly identical language.
New section 1202 is the provision implementing this obligation to protect the
integrity of copyright management information (CMI). The scope of the protection
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 6
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
is set out in two separate paragraphs, the first dealing with false CMI and the second
with removal or alteration of CMI. Subsection (a) prohibits the knowing provision or
distribution of false CMI, if done with the intent to induce, enable, facilitate or conceal
infringement. Subsection (b) bars the intentional removal or alteration of CMI without
authority, as well as the dissemination of CMI or copies of works, knowing that the
CMI has been removed or altered without authority. Liability under subsection (b)
requires that the act be done with knowledge or, with respect to civil remedies, with
reasonable grounds to know that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an
infringement.
Subsection (c) defines CMI as identifying information about the work, the
author, the copyright owner, and in certain cases, the performer, writer or director of
the work, as well as the terms and conditions for use of the work, and such other
information as the Register of Copyrights may prescribe by regulation. Information
concerning users of works is explicitly excluded.
Section 1202 is subject to a general exemption for law enforcement, intelligence
and other governmental activities. (Section 1202(d)). It also contains limitations on the
liability of broadcast stations and cable systems for removal or alteration of CMI in
certain circumstances where there is no intent to induce, enable, facilitate or conceal
an infringement. (Section 1202(e)).
Remedies
Any person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil
action in Federal court. Section 1203 gives courts the power to grant a range of
equitable and monetary remedies similar to those available under the Copyright Act,
including statutory damages. The court has discretion to reduce or remit damages in
cases of innocent violations, where the violator proves that it was not aware and had
no reason to believe its acts constituted a violation. (Section 1203(c)(5)(A)). Special
protection is given to nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions, which
are entitled to a complete remission of damages in these circumstances. (Section
1203(c)(5)(B)).
In addition, it is a criminal offense to violate section 1201 or 1202 wilfully and
for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. Under section 1204
penalties range up to a $500,000 fine or up to five years imprisonment for a first
offense, and up to a $1,000,000 fine or up to 10 years imprisonment for subsequent
offenses. Nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions are entirely
exempted from criminal liability. (Section 1204(b)).
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 7
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
Copyright Office and NTIA Studies Relating to Technological Develop-
ment
Title I of the DMCA requires the Copyright Office to conduct two studies
jointly with NTIA, one dealing with encryption and the other with the effect of
technological developments on two existing exceptions in the Copyright Act. New
section 1201(g)(5) of Title 17 of the U.S. Code requires the Register of Copyrights and
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to report
to the Congress no later than one year from enactment on the effect that the
exemption for encryption research (new section 1201(g)) has had on encryption
research, the development of encryption technology, the adequacy and effectiveness
of technological measures designed to protect copyrighted works, and the protection
of copyright owners against unauthorized access to their encrypted copyrighted works.
Section 104 of the DMCA requires the Register of Copyrights and the Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to jointly evaluate (1)
the effects of Title I of the DMCA and the development of electronic commerce and
associated technology on the operation of sections 109 (first sale doctrine) and 117
(exemption allowing owners of copies of computer programs to reproduce and adapt
them for use on a computer), and (2) the relationship between existing and emergent
technology and the operation of those sections. This study is due 24 months after the
date of enactment of the DMCA.
TITLE II: ONLINE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY LIMITATION
Title II of the DMCA adds a new section 512 to the Copyright Act3 to create
four new limitations on liability for copyright infringement by online service providers.
The limitations are based on the following four categories of conduct by a service
provider:
1. Transitory communications;
2. System caching;
3. Storage of information on systems or networks at direction of users;
and
4. Information location tools.
New section 512 also includes special rules concerning the application of these
limitations to nonprofit educational institutions.
3
The Fairness in Musical Licensing Act, Title II of Pub. L. No. 105-298, 112 Stat. 2827,
2830-34 (Oct. 27, 1998) also adds a new section 512 to the Copyright Act. This duplication of
section numbers will need to be corrected in a technical amendments bill.
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 8
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
Each limitation entails a complete bar on monetary damages, and restricts the
availability of injunctive relief in various respects. (Section 512(j)). Each limitation
relates to a separate and distinct function, and a determination of whether a service
provider qualifies for one of the limitations does not bear upon a determination of
whether the provider qualifies for any of the other three. (Section 512(n)).
The failure of a service provider to qualify for any of the limitations in section
512 does not necessarily make it liable for copyright infringement. The copyright
owner must still demonstrate that the provider has infringed, and the provider may still
avail itself of any of the defenses, such as fair use, that are available to copyright
defendants generally. (Section 512(l)).
In addition to limiting the liability of service providers, Title II establishes a
procedure by which a copyright owner can obtain a subpoena from a federal court
ordering a service provider to disclose the identity of a subscriber who is allegedly
engaging in infringing activities. (Section 512(h)).
Section 512 also contains a provision to ensure that service providers are not
placed in the position of choosing between limitations on liability on the one hand and
preserving the privacy of their subscribers, on the other. Subsection (m) explicitly
states that nothing in section 512 requires a service provider to monitor its service or
access material in violation of law (such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act)
in order to be eligible for any of the liability limitations.
Eligibility for Limitations Generally
A party seeking the benefit of the limitations on liability in Title II must qualify
as a “service provider.” For purposes of the first limitation, relating to transitory
communications, “service provider” is defined in section 512(k)(1)(A) as “an entity
offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online
communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s
choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.” For
purposes of the other three limitations, “service provider” is more broadly defined in
section 512(k)(l)(B) as “a provider of online services or network access, or the operator
of facilities therefor.”
In addition, to be eligible for any of the limitations, a service provider must
meet two overall conditions: (1) it must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of
terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat
infringers; and (2) it must accommodate and not interfere with “standard technical
measures.” (Section 512(i)). “Standard technical measures” are defined as measures
that copyright owners use to identify or protect copyrighted works, that have been
developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers
in an open, fair and voluntary multi-industry process, are available to anyone on
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 9
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
reasonable nondiscriminatory terms, and do not impose substantial costs or burdens
on service providers.
Limitation for Transitory Communications
In general terms, section 512(a) limits the liability of service providers in
circumstances where the provider merely acts as a data conduit, transmitting digital
information from one point on a network to another at someone else’s request. This
limitation covers acts of transmission, routing, or providing connections for the
information, as well as the intermediate and transient copies that are made automatically
in the operation of a network.
In order to qualify for this limitation, the service provider’s activities must meet
the following conditions:
The transmission must be initiated by a person other than the provider.
!
The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or copying must
!
be carried out by an automatic technical process without selection of
material by the service provider.
The service provider must not determine the recipients of the material.
!
Any intermediate copies must not ordinarily be accessible to anyone
!
other than anticipated recipients, and must not be retained for longer
than reasonably necessary.
The material must be transmitted with no modification to its content.
!
Limitation for System Caching
Section 512(b) limits the liability of service providers for the practice of
retaining copies, for a limited time, of material that has been made available online by
a person other than the provider, and then transmitted to a subscriber at his or her
direction. The service provider retains the material so that subsequent requests for the
same material can be fulfilled by transmitting the retained copy, rather than retrieving
the material from the original source on the network.
The benefit of this practice is that it reduces the service provider’s bandwidth
requirements and reduces the waiting time on subsequent requests for the same
information. On the other hand, it can result in the delivery of outdated information
to subscribers and can deprive website operators of accurate “hit” information —
information about the number of requests for particular material on a website — from
which advertising revenue is frequently calculated. For this reason, the person making
the material available online may establish rules about updating it, and may utilize
technological means to track the number of “hits.”
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 10
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
The limitation applies to acts of intermediate and temporary storage, when
carried out through an automatic technical process for the purpose of making the
material available to subscribers who subsequently request it. It is subject to the
following conditions:
The content of the retained material must not be modified.
!
The provider must comply with rules about “refreshing” mate-
!
rial—replacing retained copies of material with material from the
original location— when specified in accordance with a generally
accepted industry standard data communication protocol.
The provider must not interfere with technology that returns “hit”
!
information to the person who posted the material, where such
technology meets certain requirements.
The provider must limit users’ access to the material in accordance with
!
conditions on access (e.g., password protection) imposed by the person
who posted the material.
Any material that was posted without the copyright owner’s authoriza-
!
tion must be removed or blocked promptly once the service provider
has been notified that it has been removed, blocked, or ordered to be
removed or blocked, at the originating site.
Limitation for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the
Direction of Users
Section 512(c) limits the liability of service providers for infringing material on
websites (or other information repositories) hosted on their systems. It applies to
storage at the direction of a user. In order to be eligible for the limitation, the
following conditions must be met:
The provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge of the
!
infringing activity, as described below.
If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity,
!
it must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the
infringing activity.
Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, the
!
provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the material.
In addition, a service provider must have filed with the Copyright Office a
designation of an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement. The Office
provides a suggested form for the purpose of designating an agent
(http://www.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/) and maintains a list of agents on the
Copyright Office website (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/list/).
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 11

[deweese]

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
The provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge that the
!
material is infringing. The knowledge standard is the same as under the
limitation for information residing on systems or networks.
If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity,
!
the provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to
the activity.
Upon receiving a notification of claimed infringement, the provider
!
must expeditiously take down or block access to the material.
These are essentially the same conditions that apply under the previous
limitation, with some differences in the notification requirements. The provisions
establishing safeguards against the possibility of erroneous or fraudulent notifications,
as discussed above, as well as those protecting the provider against claims based on
having taken down the material apply to this limitation. (Sections 512(f)-(g)).
Special Rules Regarding Liability of Nonprofit Educational Institutions
Section 512(e) determines when the actions or knowledge of a faculty member
or graduate student employee who is performing a teaching or research function may
affect the eligibility of a nonprofit educational institution for one of the four limitations
on liability. As to the limitations for transitory communications or system caching, the
faculty member or student shall be considered a “person other than the provider,” so
as to avoid disqualifying the institution from eligibility. As to the other limitations, the
knowledge or awareness of the faculty member or student will not be attributed to the
institution. The following conditions must be met:
the faculty member or graduate student’s infringing activities do not
!
involve providing online access to course materials that were required
or recommended during the past three years;
the institution has not received more than two notifications over the
!
past three years that the faculty member or graduate student was
infringing; and
the institution provides all of its users with informational materials
!
describing and promoting compliance with copyright law.
TITLE III: COMPUTER MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR
Title III expands the existing exemption relating to computer programs in
section 117 of the Copyright Act, which allows the owner of a copy of a program to
make reproductions or adaptations when necessary to use the program in conjunction
with a computer. The amendment permits the owner or lessee of a computer to make
or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program in the course of maintaining
or repairing that computer. The exemption only permits a copy that is made
automatically when a computer is activated, and only if the computer already lawfully
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 13
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
contains an authorized copy of the program. The new copy cannot be used in any
other manner and must be destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is
completed.
TITLE IV: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Clarification of the Authority of the Copyright Office
Section 401(b), adds language to section 701 of the Copyright Act confirming
the Copyright Office’s authority to continue to perform the policy and international
functions that it has carried out for decades under its existing general authority.
Ephemeral Recordings for Broadcasters
Section 112 of the Copyright Act grants an exemption for the making of
“ephemeral recordings.” These are recordings made in order to facilitate a transmis-
sion. Under this exemption, for example, a radio station can record a set of songs and
broadcast from the new recording rather than from the original CDs (which would
have to be changed “on the fly” during the course of a broadcast).
As it existed prior to enactment of the DMCA, section 112 permitted a
transmitting organization to make and retain for up to six months (hence the term
“ephemeral”) no more than one copy of a work if it was entitled to transmit a public
performance or display of the work, either under a license or by virtue of the fact that
there is no general public performance right in sound recordings (as distinguished from
musical works).
The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (DPRA)
created, for the first time in U.S. copyright law, a limited public performance right in
sound recordings. The right only covers public performances by means of digital
transmission and is subject to an exemption for digital broadcasts (i.e., transmissions
by FCC licensed terrestrial broadcast stations) and a statutory license for certain
subscription transmissions that are not made on demand (i.e. in response to the specific
request of a recipient).
Section 402 of the DMCA expands the section 112 exemption to include
recordings that are made to facilitate the digital transmission of a sound recording
where the transmission is made under the DPRA’s exemption for digital broadcasts or
statutory license. As amended, section 112 also permits in some circumstances the
circumvention of access control technologies in order to enable an organization to
make an ephemeral recording.
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 14
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
Distance Education Study
In the course of consideration of the DMCA, legislators expressed an interest
in amending the Copyright Act to promote distance education, possibly through an
expansion of the existing exception for instructional broadcasting in section 110(2).
Section 403 of the DMCA directs the Copyright Office to consult with affected parties
and make recommendations to Congress on how to promote distance education
through digital technologies. The Office must report to Congress within six months
of enactment.
The Copyright Office is directed to consider the following issues:
The need for a new exemption;
!
Categories of works to be included in any exemption;
!
Appropriate quantitative limitations on the portions of works that may
!
be used under any exemption;
Which parties should be eligible for any exemption;
!
Which parties should be eligible recipients of distance education
!
material under any exemption;
The extent to which use of technological protection measures should
be mandated as a condition of eligibility for any exemption;
The extent to which the availability of licenses should be considered in
assessing eligibility for any exemption; and
Other issues as appropriate.
Exemption for Nonprofit Libraries and Archives
Section 404 of the DMCA amends the exemption for nonprofit libraries and
archives in section 108 of the Copyright Act to accommodate digital technologies and
evolving preservation practices. Prior to enactment of the DMCA, section 108
permitted such libraries and archives to make a single facsimile (i.e., not digital) copy
of a work for purposes of preservation or interlibrary loan. As amended, section 108
permits up to three copies, which may be digital, provided that digital copies are not
made available to the public outside the library premises. In addition, the amended
section permits such a library or archive to copy a work into a new format if the
original format becomes obsolete—that is, the machine or device used to render the
work perceptible is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the
commercial marketplace.
Webcasting Amendments to the Digital Performance Right in Sound
Recordings
As discussed above, in 1995 Congress enacted the DPRA, creating a
performance right in sound recordings that is limited to digital transmissions. Under
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 15
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
that legislation, three categories of digital transmissions were addressed: broadcast
transmissions, which were exempted from the performance right; subscription
transmissions, which were generally subject to a statutory license; and on-demand
transmissions, which were subject to the full exclusive right. Broadcast transmissions
under the DPRA are transmissions made by FCC-licensed terrestrial broadcast stations.
In the past several years, a number of entities have begun making digital
transmissions of sound recordings over the Internet using streaming audio technolo-
gies. This activity does not fall squarely within any of the three categories that were
addressed in the DPRA. Section 405 of the DMCA amends the DPRA, expanding the
statutory license for subscription transmissions to include webcasting as a new category
of “eligible nonsubscription transmissions.”
In addition to expanding the scope of the statutory license, the DMCA revises
the criteria that any entity must meet in order to be eligible for the license (other than
those who are subject to a grandfather clause, leaving the existing criteria intact). It
revises the considerations for setting rates as well (again, subject to a grandfather
clause), directing arbitration panels convened under the law to set the royalty rates at
fair market value.
This provision of the DMCA also creates a new statutory license for making
ephemeral recordings. As indicated above, section 402 of the DMCA amends section
112 of the Copyright Act to permit the making of a single ephemeral recording to
facilitate the digital transmission of sound recording that is permitted either under the
DPRA’s broadcasting exemption or statutory license. Transmitting organizations that
wish to make more than the single ephemeral recording of a sound recording that is
permitted under the outright exemption in section 112 are now eligible for a statutory
license to make such additional ephemeral recordings. In addition, the new statutory
license applies to the making of ephemeral recordings by transmitting organizations
other than broadcasters who are exempt from the digital performance right, who are
not covered by the expanded exemption in section 402 of the DMCA.
Assumption of Contractual Obligations upon Transfers of Rights in
Motion Pictures
Section 416 addresses concerns about the ability of writers, directors and screen
actors to obtain residual payments for the exploitation of motion pictures in situations
where the producer is no longer able to make these payments. The guilds’ collective
bargaining agreements currently require producers to obtain assumption agreements
from distributors in certain circumstances, by which the distributor assumes the
producer’s obligation to make such residual payments. Some production companies
apparently do not always do so, leaving the guilds without contractual privity enabling
them to seek recourse from the distributor.
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 16
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
The DMCA adds a new chapter to Title 28 of the U.S. Code that imposes on
transferees those obligations to make residual payments that the producer would be
required to have the transferee assume under the relevant collective bargaining
agreement. The obligations attach only if the distributor knew or had reason to know
that the motion picture was produced subject to a collective bargaining agreement, or
in the event of a court order confirming an arbitration award under the collective
bargaining agreement that the producer cannot satisfy within ninety days. There are
two classes of transfers that are excluded from the scope of this provision. The first
is transfers limited to public performance rights, and the second is grants of security
interests, along with any subsequent transfers from the security interest holder.
The provision also directs the Comptroller General, in consultation with the
Register of Copyrights, to conduct a study on the conditions in the motion picture
industry that gave rise to this provision, and the impact of the provision on the
industry. The study is due two years from enactment.
TITLE V: PROTECTION OF CERTAIN ORIGINAL DESIGNS
Title V of the DMCA, entitled the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act
(VHDPA), adds a new chapter 13 to Title 17 of the U.S. Code. It creates a new system
for protecting original designs of certain useful articles that make the article attractive
or distinctive in appearance. For purposes of the VHDPA, “useful articles” are limited
to the hulls (including the decks) of vessels no longer than 200 feet.
A design is protected under the VHDPA as soon as a useful article embodying
the design is made public or a registration for the design is published. Protection is lost
if an application for registration is not made within two years after a design is first made
public, but a design is not registrable if it has been made public more than one year
before the date of the application for registration. Once registered, protection
continues for ten years from the date protection begins.
The VHDPA is subject to a legislative sunset: the Act expires two years from
enactment (October 28, 2000). The Copyright Office is directed to conduct two joint
studies with the Patent and Trademark Office—the first by October 28, 1999 and the
second by October 28, 2000—evaluating the impact of the VHDPA.
EFFECTIVE DATES
Most provisions of the DMCA are effective on the date of enactment. There
are, however, several exceptions. The technical amendments in Title I that relate to
eligibility of works for protection under U.S. copyright law by virtue of the new WIPO
treaties do not take effect until the relevant treaty comes into force. Similarly,
restoration of copyright protection for such works does not become effective until the
relevant treaty comes into force. The prohibition on the act of circumvention of access
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 17
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
control measures does not take effect until two years from enactment (October 28,
2000).
F

[slavik]

just so you people know, i'm from Australia and i'm not a christian, but i respect christianity aas a whole. Now that thats out of the way: Australia also practices the copy write laws of the USA due to free trade aggrements thus it's effectively illegal to install these codecs, but the problem is: i buy music legit, in mp3 form how am i ment to be able to play my music through my computer without mp3 codecs?

in all honnesty i think that what this script does (all of it) should be legal. But it's stupid to break a law because "it's stupid" Anyway, i'll leave it there.
mp3 format is a trademark of the Thompson corporation (or whatever they are).

which means that if you want to write your own codec, you have to pay them royalties.

which means you need to charge money to make a return on these royalties.

this is why there is ogg vorbis, learn it, use it, love it, live it.

[casperiv]

This whole thing thread is pretty crazy. Christian or not, somewhere a long the line there is logic and personal accountability and it differs from person to person.

A moral issue is not the same as a legal one. Under this thought process, going anything over 65 in a 65 zone is morally wrong, but no where in the bible does it say traffic violations are a sin...... There are many such circumstances, which is why there is a division of church and state.

If you don't feel that under your own moral code that using this specific application is morally correct, then don't do it.

[Cynical]

...But it's stupid to break a law because "it's stupid" Anyway, i'll leave it there.

Its a citizen's duty to ignore laws that are immoral, inconstitutional, or down right stupid. This is one of the reasons the United States became a country. (It's also stupid to comply with a law just because its a law)

mp3 format is a trademark of the Thompson corporation (or whatever they are).

That patent will expire in 4 years. By then I'm assuming everyone will be using vorbis because of its technical superiority.

[Epperly]

Automatix states you can pay a fee to the makers or whatever of the codec's, if you're so much worried about sinning to the point of downloading a codec you can contact the codec makers and pay them..

[silvagroup]

US Supreme Court has said that if you have bought and own any media which includes the capability to use on your pc, or media player you have also paid for that which makes it usable on that system if it included in the media it belongs to you. So for many people Automatix would not be a problem and if you need to pay for the capability then simply buy it. ](*,)

[Sef]

US Supreme Court has said that if you have bought and own any media which includes the capability to use on your pc, or media player you have also paid for that which makes it usable on that system if it included in the media it belongs to you.

Which case is that? Could you supply a link or at least the parties involved, if not the title of the case number.

[silvagroup]

It starts with the 321 Studios lawsuit back 2001 or was it 2002. Can't remember the year, and much of the litigation which ensued after that. I was, as many here are, wondering about the legalities of using codecs and such.
After many weeks of searching and reading an overwhelming amount of information it became apparent to me that it is OK to use them. Of course that was my interpretation of the information I found. I am not trained in the law but it to me was very apparent I had the rights to use the technology I had already paid for. Notice, the key is, that I had already bought the rights to use the technology, and that I was not or am I using it to redistribute or profit from there use of the technology which rightfully belongs to someone else. It is solely for my use only, which is what I have paid for.
For someone with knowledge in trial case searching and accessing the work to find this info would be easy, but for me to do that again would take more time than I currently have, like I said it took me a couple of week before.
That said, I do recall that the major problem for 321 Studios was that as company they did not purchase the key and so had no right to use the technologies, in anyway.](*,)
Of course much of the information has been kept out of the lime light, can't imagine why:-#
Essentially, you have the right to back up your media, which for example if you have little children a CD or DVD doesn't last long with them. So after they destroy one you backup another one for them and they are fine again. That is the main issue for the user.
That is why the producers of the media content are jumping on the DRM technologies. This computer I am currently on, which has no DRM, maybe the last one I ever own, if that technology keeps proliferating.
Anybody ever read the book 1984, if you haven't you really should, you could say Orwell was a prophet of sorts in the writting of this book.:-k

[TitanKing]

Sometimes you guys make me freaking sick. It stays your free choice to install legal software or not. Just the same as to start up a peer2peer client and download illegal stuff.

Get your facts straight buddy...

I find it very surprising that Ubuntu CE (a "Christian" distro) has included the Automatix script as part of their package. As I'm sure you are aware, the script downloads and installs codecs and drivers that (for US citizens at least) are not in the public domain -- your screenshots even show the line that merely requires a simple tick in order to install "NON FREE Audio and DVD codecs".

To my knowledge, all the other Ubuntu and Debian distros have very correctly, and probably on the sound advice of copyright lawyers, supplied only software that has been rigorously vetted as legal to own and operate worldwide.

Given the ethical "gray area" of the Automatix script, would you consider removing it from the disto?

[Tobster]

I believe that software should be free. My view is that I paid £450 for a top end computer with software that I did not wish to have (Windows) As a consumer I should have the right to choose and I would choose Ubuntu every time.

I brought my computer to play DVD's and I believe that I should be able too under any OS as I did pay for the codec when I was forced into paying for Windows XP. (which is pre-installed)

If people really know about computers they could also argue that Microsoft have been immoral, for example Apple tried to sue Microsoft in the late 80's I believe it was 1988 if I remember my college notes (UK College is not like US College) but lost because of Coke and Pepsi are both Colas but are different.

Going forward to 2006 Windows Vista's 3D technology but who created it first? It was not Microsoft... Try Novell with SUSE Linux. GXL was created for the Open Source world.

Microsoft have a long history of copying the Open Source world. Sun a great company I think (along with Canonical! lol) Because every time they make a break though after time they release how they done it. A good example is there ecological CPU. Can't see Microsoft doing that, know I might be wrong in saying that MS will not do something like that.

Thanks

Toby

PS Im not a church person but was intrested in this link

[mysticrider92]

I don't want to start an argument here or anything, but I looked at some other places for information adouth libdvdcss package, and from what I read, it looks like the package is legal at this point. There is a post on Wikipedia (I know it isn't the most reliable site, but still...) and I asked about this in the multimedia section here, and it looks like the package has not been fought about in court, and no one is really sure how legal it is, so you should be able to use it for watching dvds legally (just don't give a copy to anyone else). I know that the Decss packages are illegal, but from what I saw, there is a difference in DeCss and the libdvdcss. Just my thoughts on this, please don't get mad.

[amiga_os]

Wow... what a discussion. I'll be honest, I've only read half the posts...

Automatix enables you to do something illegal. So does Firefox. And Evolution Mail. Automatix also gives clear warnings... as others in the thread have already said.

But I want to contribute a question: Does owning a Microsoft Windows license... preinstalled with your computer... mean you can legally use a dvd codec (I'm trying to make sense of the warning that Automatix gives you when you install libdvdcss). Surely owning a copy of the MS operating system means you have legal right to use DVDs in Windows... meaning that you have legal right to use DVDs.

Could this be an inadvertant (and comparatively tiny) upshot of every pc coming pre-installed with Windows?

[aysiu]

But I want to contribute a question: Does owning a Microsoft Windows license... preinstalled with your computer... mean you can legally use a dvd codec (I'm trying to make sense of the warning that Automatix gives you when you install libdvdcss). Surely owning a copy of the MS operating system means you have legal right to use DVDs in Windows... meaning that you have legal right to use DVDs. Actually, no.

In order to have a legal right to use DVDs, you usually need a program like PowerDVD or InterVideo WinDVD. Windows alone does not grant you that license.

[amiga_os]

OK... but if your pc did come with winDVD or something similar... then do you have a legal right to use DVDs.

This is irrelevant to me anyhow, since I don't live in the US...

[mysticrider92]

Yeah, I was very suprised after I got Windows Media Player 11 for our xp computer and I couldn't play dvds without paying $14-$30 for a codec (they make it so you can only use the program on a windoze pc, why can't you use the codecs from the old player?).

[silvagroup]

why can't you use the codecs from the old player? You probably can, or why not just use the old player or it's codecs. Not having messed with windows for years I can't say for sure.:-k
Better still if you had a working codecs you already had paid for it's use so just use in in *nix and forget about windows anyway.](*,)

[aysiu]

I just downloaded Ubuntu CE, and I have to say it's pretty cool. The background graphics (once Gnome is loaded) are great even if the Usplash is huge.

Having Automatix already in the menus is a big help, and there is a you-can't-miss it warning about certain codecs being illegal in certain places, and if you answer "no" to those codecs, they are excluded from the available software installable through Automatix.

No ethical dilemma whatsoever, no matter how uptight you are.

[mysticrider92]

You probably can, or why not just use the old player or it's codecs. Not having messed with windows for years I can't say for sure.:-k
Better still if you had a working codecs you already had paid for it's use so just use in in *nix and forget about windows anyway.](*,)

That is on our family computer, so I can't. ](*,)

DVD's worked WMP 9, but when I upgraded to WMP 11 beta, they don't work (It doesn't really matter, Nero Showtime works just as well). It looks nice though.

[mhancoc7]

I just downloaded Ubuntu CE, and I have to say it's pretty cool. The background graphics (once Gnome is loaded) are great even if the Usplash is huge.

Having Automatix already in the menus is a big help, and there is a you-can't-miss it warning about certain codecs being illegal in certain places, and if you answer "no" to those codecs, they are excluded from the available software installable through Automatix.

No ethical dilemma whatsoever, no matter how uptight you are.

Thanks very much for you kind words. Yes the Usplash is very large out of the box. You can add a line to your grub menu like vga=791 for 1024x768 and it looks much better. Check out the Ubuntu CE video (http://www.whatwouldjesusdownload.com/christianubuntu/2006/10/ubuntu-christian-edition-video.html).
Thanks, Jereme

[aysiu]

Thanks very much for you kind words. Yes the Usplash is very large out of the box. You can add a line to your grub menu like vga=791 for 1024x768 and it looks much better. Check out the Ubuntu CE video (http://www.whatwouldjesusdownload.com/christianubuntu/2006/10/ubuntu-christian-edition-video.html).
Thanks, Jereme
Just wanted to say I appreciate the work that you've done. Maybe I'll show it to my pastor if he's open to it, but it's all I can do just to get him to look at Mac OS X instead of Windows.

[mhancoc7]

Just wanted to say I appreciate the work that you've done. Maybe I'll show it to my pastor if he's open to it, but it's all I can do just to get him to look at Mac OS X instead of Windows.

Thanks and good luck. I love to watch peoples eyes glaze over when I even say the word Linux or Open-Source. :)

God Bless, Jereme

[zetetic]

Well, I have used windows for more than 15 years. During that long period I've used thousands of proprietary software and proprietary codecs.
And know what? I've never payed a single program or software! I've never payed for windows, or any ohther software.

And of course I see movies and I played games (I don'y play games anymore cause I don't have the time nor the patient), but I've never bought a movies or game.
I always had friends who gave me what I needed. And I know how to use peeer-to-peer... And ofcourse, since the very begining, I learned how to crack software.

All these things are perfectly legal where I live, since I never earned money with other people's software, movies, or games. I' ve just used them!

I will not explain the concept of intellectual property and Why the mencioned activites are perfectly legal for two reasons:
a) first of all, english is not my mother language, so it would be a pain for me to explain so complex definitions, and law issues;
b) second, because the explanation could only be understood by people with a degree in law.

Currently I'm engaged in more "illegal" similar activities: I'm singing songs I've never payied for; I'm reading books my friends borrowed me and (sin of the sins) at this very moment I'm looking through my window into the beautiful gardem on my neighbour and taking so much pleasure and knowledge from that sight... and I will not pay him a centim for that... :)
Oh, and now I'm gonna build a garden identical to his garden.... oh, I'm really a bad guy...

So I just leave you with a simple yet very important phrase:

Intellectual property only gives the author one right: the right to exclusively earn money with the work, the right to be the only who makes profits with the work... Anybody can use, enjoy, or get any sort of knowledge or information with/from his work, but only he, the author, can make money with it.

That's what distinguishes immaterial or incorporeal objects (the objects of intellectual property) from the material objects. The rigth to restrict or obstruct the use or access to an object (v.g., a chair, a television, a house, etc), belongs strictly to the world of material objects.

If in the United States things are different, there should be something very wrong with the politics of the country.

[MonsterDog]

I'm sure that God can find better reasons to send me to hell than the fact that I may have used a codec or two without the legal right to do so. What is it about some Christians that make them think they are the only ones with the right answers. Are you a Supreme Court Justice? Are you a prophet? Why is it so important to you that other Christians not have choices. You made the 'right' decision, are you so much better than the rest of us that you need to shelter the rest of us from a test you were able to pass?

It is almost impossible to figure out what's right and wrong under the law, some things are fairly obvious, but even homicide can be legal under certain circumstances. I tend to think it's a little easier to understand what God wants from me. He wants me to make the right choices. If you remove those choices you are undo-ing God's work.

I think Zetetic's response makes it fairly clear that morality and legality are two completely separate issues. It may be perfectly legal to do the things he does in his country, does that make it ethical? I don't know, but my guess is that it doesn't.

I think the most important thing Christ taught us is that we are clueless. Most of what we are certain of is bound to be untrue, unimportant. The real truth of the matter is that you don't know for sure until the judge bangs the gavel. You will know for sure when you meet God, but not before.

God may or may not have an issue with the people who use these 'illegal' codecs, but I don't. It's is their choice, and my choice, if He doesn't like it He'll let us know.

Personally, I think God would be more upset with me for wasting my time to respond to this pathetic thread when I could be out doing charity work or sweeping the sidewalk.

MD

[silvagroup]

We are getting off topic and the topic has been covered to it's furthest possible extent. It's is their choice, and my choice, if He doesn't like it He'll let us know. and MonsterDog is right the data is there it's pretty much a choice.
And as for why we are on this pathetic post I can only quote Paul 1Co 9:22 "To the weak I became as the weak, so that I might gain the weak. I am made all things to all men, so that I might by all means save some." So if Paul were still around today he may more than likely be posting his post. That's also one of the freedoms we have in God, that of our choice and opinion, and the nice thing about that is that I also don't have to be involved in others choices or opinions but we are called to "seek wise counsel" Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1. I consider this a place to get some of that, no different than wasting my time talking to the people at church, the pastor, elders, etc. Just a different format. God bless you all.

[zetetic]

Some clarification (This clafication goes in the form of a reply to an hypothetical person, not a real person):

It's perfectly legal to do those things here, where I live, as long as I don't economically explore other people's work. I was just USING those works (in order to obtain enterteinment or knowledge); I wasn't earning money with other people's works!

For instance, I wasn't selling pirate CDs, I was not making public or payed exibition of movies or songs. I was not getting payed (for instance in the form of advertisments) for distributing the corporeal or corporified substract of other people's intelectual properties, and so on... That's why all I was doing is perfectly legal.

Perfectly legal and ethical, in my opinion, because when someone came with a new intellectual work, that work is only possible because the new creator relied in other people's work, in intellectual works and ideas that were created before, by other people. And as you know, those previous work almost never gets payed, cause it belongs to the all community. Are you paying for using programmers languages? When you play piano are you paying for using the music scale? If someone had to pay for all the knowledge it takes to make a movie or a song, please tell me: who could make new songs or new movies??

And you most not forget that the object of intellectual propriety are ideias, something that is immaterial. That's why the only right an author has is the right to be the only one to EARN MONEY with his work, not the right to restrict other people's ability to use or take contact with his work!

Why? For some good reaons. But first of all because it's impossible to prevent people to use ideias, intellectual properties!

If you own a chair, off course it's fairly easy for you to prevent me for sitting in your chair. And you can do that without transforming this world in a totalitarian madness.

But if you, for example, made a song or a piece of software (software are just ideias in the form of instructions) how can you prevent all other people to enjoy, get knoledge or take contact with your work??

I've listened to your song on the radio, or on a concert you have given, or on my friend's house. How can you prevent me for singing that song when I decide to take a bath or how can you prevent me for playng that song on my guitar and teach my friend to play it?

If I went to my friends house and have contact with your software, how can you prevent me for getting knowledge from or to enjoy your software (imagine that it's a computer game, for instance)??

If you have made a poetic book that I've read in a library or in my friend's house, how can you prevent me for using your poetic words in a romantic meeting with my girlfriend??

The answear is: YOU CAN'T!! Or you could only prevent those things if we lived in a completely and unbelievable totalitarian regimen (far worst that that achieved by the Talibans). For instance no privacy could exist! I could not take a bath alone, cause I certainly would sing your song. I could not be here alone, on my computer chair, cause I could be using "illegal" software.

That's why all those fanatic and desperated attempts to prevent other people's to access or use copyrighted intellectual property are almost allways condemned to a ridicolus failure...

PS: just one more thing: If you want to sell 100 chairs, you must build 100 chairs. If you want to sell the corporeal materiallization of 100 computer programs or 100 songs, you only need to make a computer program or a song... You see... material and immaterial objects are to completely different animals, for bad and for good...

[refdoc]

Bizarre thread, but for what it is worth let me assure you, I do not give a rat's **** for what Americans hold for illegal. Just as I do not give a monkey's for what CHinese or Iranian governments hold for illegal.

Entirely your problem if you have a stupid country with silly laws. Do not make others suffer for this and certainly do not accuse them for enjoying their freedom. You may ask for prayer from the rest of us to get your country improved though.

WRT patent encumbered codec's nonsense - Software patents are yet another American problem which do not exist here. May it last.

[jhmac77]

I find it very surprising that Ubuntu CE (a "Christian" distro) has included the Automatix script as part of their package. As I'm sure you are aware, the script downloads and installs codecs and drivers that (for US citizens at least) are not in the public domain -- your screenshots even show the line that merely requires a simple tick in order to install "NON FREE Audio and DVD codecs".

To my knowledge, all the other Ubuntu and Debian distros have very correctly, and probably on the sound advice of copyright lawyers, supplied only software that has been rigorously vetted as legal to own and operate worldwide.

Given the ethical "gray area" of the Automatix script, would you consider removing it from the disto?

Ever heard of postmodernism? Unfortunately we have a lot of that going around. We personally need to follow the Bible on this issue.
Jim:)

[SunnyRabbiera]

There is no commandment saying "thou shalt not use automatix"
Plus I dont think of using the win codecs and the like "stealing", more like "sort of borrowing" :P

[lazyart]

Well, I have used windows for more than 15 years. During that long period I've used thousands of proprietary software and proprietary codecs.
And know what? I've never payed a single program or software! I've never payed for windows, or any ohther software.

And of course I see movies and I played games (I don'y play games anymore cause I don't have the time nor the patient), but I've never bought a movies or game.
I always had friends who gave me what I needed. And I know how to use peeer-to-peer... And ofcourse, since the very begining, I learned how to crack software.

All these things are perfectly legal where I live, since I never earned money with other people's software, movies, or games. I' ve just used them!

I will not explain the concept of intellectual property and Why the mencioned activites are perfectly legal for two reasons:
a) first of all, english is not my mother language, so it would be a pain for me to explain so complex definitions, and law issues;
b) second, because the explanation could only be understood by people with a degree in law.

Currently I'm engaged in more "illegal" similar activities: I'm singing songs I've never payied for; I'm reading books my friends borrowed me and (sin of the sins) at this very moment I'm looking through my window into the beautiful gardem on my neighbour and taking so much pleasure and knowledge from that sight... and I will not pay him a centim for that... :)
Oh, and now I'm gonna build a garden identical to his garden.... oh, I'm really a bad guy...

So I just leave you with a simple yet very important phrase:

Intellectual property only gives the author one right: the right to exclusively earn money with the work, the right to be the only who makes profits with the work... Anybody can use, enjoy, or get any sort of knowledge or information with/from his work, but only he, the author, can make money with it.

That's what distinguishes immaterial or incorporeal objects (the objects of intellectual property) from the material objects. The rigth to restrict or obstruct the use or access to an object (v.g., a chair, a television, a house, etc), belongs strictly to the world of material objects.

If in the United States things are different, there should be something very wrong with the politics of the country.


That's an interesting post, but the word "ethical" doesn't show up once. Only the question of legality was addressed, which is not the point.

[hoggbottom59]

Personally I've picked Ubuntu because it is easy to install things I need to install.

If this wasn't the case then I'd be using a different distro.

Autom2 has been helpful in installing things that are difficult to install in Synaptic. The two important things I've installed definitely aren't under any kind of grey area - lightscribe support and VMware Service.

People should be allowed to install what they want. Unlike Windows programs doing similar things at least the Autom2 warns people about the consequences of what they are doing.

Linux allows users to pick what they install and modern package managers alert users to what it being installed and about what needs to be installed. Compare this to all those rubbishy free trials installed by Windows software without warning.

Also a note about the legal grey area - it is very simple to install software on Windows that gets round cd and DVD encryption. On Linux there doesn't seem to be anything that works out the box you need to search for the information.

59.

[mikkebe]

Ubuntu CE is a nice distro and I am happy I found it. I am surprised at this question, and I wonder if it's author walks or rides a bike everywhere because a car could exceed the legal speed limit. We as Christians should be in control of what we do. While we must be in this world we do not have to be of this world. I am very new with Ubuntu CE but would guess that, if the author is so tempted by Automatix that it is a problem, it could be easily removed from his or her's system and life goes on.

[Kilz]

There is no commandment saying "thou shalt not use automatix"
Plus I dont think of using the win codecs and the like "stealing", more like "sort of borrowing" :P

There is also no commandment that says "Thou shalt not view internet porn" But I have a feeling it would be against sixth commandment (Thou shalt not commit adultery) principles that we should live a chaste and decent life in thought word and deed.

When you violate the laws of the land (copyright) you violate Forth commandment principles. In that god has placed the government above us and we should obey the just laws that they in act to protect the rights of content owners.
(Romans 13)
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

We could also look at the 7th commandment (Thou shalt not steal) In that we should not take our neighbors money or goods without paying for them. Simply because the internet has found a new way to to make goods does not negate this.

Jeremiah 22:13 Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work;

Even if there is no civil law that makes it illeagel, and if you somehow rationalize away the 7th commandment. There is still the moral law written in or hearts that says its wrong. (Romans 2:11-15)

Buyt not only is there a ethical problem with Automatix, but a technical one. (http://mjg59.livejournal.com/77440.html) as pointed out by the Ubuntu Technical Board.

[frodon]

There's no need to beat the dead horse over and over again and revive one year old thread, time to move on don't you think ?

All about automatix has been said and you will find an official statement here :
http://mjg59.livejournal.com/77440.html

Thread closed