PDA

View Full Version : Legality of distributing Ubuntu in Australia



kircher
April 26th, 2010, 07:11 AM
Hi to all interested people or those with some legal knowledge.

I am in the process of starting a small computer assembling/reselling business, and repair and upgrade service.

I have been using Ubuntu since 5.10, and I am so impressed with the speed of its development and how far it has come into a highly polished stable OS for the mass market.

I want to give my customers the option to spec their computer systems with Ubuntu (or something else if need be) for free, with the option of paid-for Canonical support but I am concerned that I might be liable for all sorts of legal troubles due to the inclusion of patent encumbered media codecs and other software.

As some of you may know, Australia signed a free trade agreement with the US a few years back. As part of this agreement we also agreed to the terms of the US DMCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act). My understanding of this, is that it is probably illegal in Australia to use the libdvdcss dvd decryption or any circumvention of DRM, and possibly illegal to use mp3 and other media codecs encumbered by patents. I have no qualms with including proprietary drivers or multimedia software in the restricted repository. They aren't illegal.

Would I be out of harms way from any nasty law suits by simply disabling the multiverse repository?

I am afraid that even if I did disable the multiverse repo, customers would be unhappy with Ubuntu when they can't listen to mp3s and watch divx or h264 encoded videos. This is not something I would want to compromise on. If I disabled the multiverse repository by default, but provided easy to follow instructions for the user to enable it and download the restricted formats themselves, am I still liable to pay damages or whatever to patent owners?

This thread is open to any form of discussion on these issues, including the viability of installing Ubuntu on systems for mass consumption, and any input into the legal issues I have described. Also, commercial PowerDVD Linux and Fluendo codecs are simply not an option. For the price of those two I can install Windows 7 OEM - which I admit is a pretty good Operating System. In the end I'll probably have to seek professional legal council before I do anything though.

Thank you.

Kircher

Paqman
April 26th, 2010, 08:55 AM
The only completely legal route is the multimedia codecs available in the Canonical Store (http://shop.canonical.com/index.php?cPath=19). It'll bump the sticker price up for your customers, but you can guarantee you're not infringing by using them.

You might want to talk to Canonical (http://www.canonical.com/partners) about what they can do for you, you might get a discount for volume.

kircher
April 26th, 2010, 11:27 AM
Thank you Paqman. As I stated in my OP, I don't think PowerDVD Linux and the Fluendo codecs are much of a solution. I looked into it at the Ubuntu shop, and they would end up costing me close to $100 AU. Considering I can install Windows 7 OEM for $135 AU, that is too expensive. I'm not saying That Ubuntu with codecs is not worth the money, I just don't think many customers would want to pay that much more money to use media when the OS is otherwise free, when they can spend just that little bit more for the latest and greatest Windows OS.

It would be great if I could just disable multiverse by default, but inform new users how to enable the non-free codecs themselves, and waive myself of any legal obligations, because personally I think the DMCA, and the concept of software patenting is an utter joke. But that is not the point of this thread.

I did contact Canonical and ask them some questions about becoming a distributor but haven't got a response, funnily.

user1397
April 26th, 2010, 11:33 AM
If I were you I would just have some sort of disclaimer that you're not responsible for what your customers download after they purchase from you...how can that get back to you?

And honestly, I doubt the music/film industries are gonna come after you with men in black suits if they find anything out...their arm is long, but it can't be that long...

kircher
April 26th, 2010, 11:50 AM
Yeah, Ubuntuman I have thought of just installing and not worrying, but in case my business is successful I have to do everything legally. If I am just selling to a couple of people occasionally, then I wouldn't worry. If I am selling to hundreds, then I do have to worry. Ultimately it would be great to have the courts in Oz overturn our software patent laws.

I'll have to talk to a lawyer eventually, but all this advice is helpful. Thank you.

Grenage
April 26th, 2010, 11:52 AM
Couldn't you just install Ubuntu, and put a script on the desktop that installs the restricted extras? You could then ship each PC with a notice, telling them what it's for.

Dayofswords
April 26th, 2010, 12:14 PM
Basically, a default install of Ubuntu is legal, i think, everywhere.

if the customer wants dvd/mp3/blah support legally, you can get them the codec from canonical. inform your customers that ubuntu is not windows and that is does not have certain features for certain reasons(all of them are legal reasons >.>)

not denying they access doesn't mean your telling them to get the codec from the multiverse as once they take the computer away from its their responsibility

a default oem install(hope you know how to use it the oem installer) is legal

the above idea is good too (legally is questionable if it directs to illegal content(IF the multiverse mp3/dvd/blah is illegal), reminds me of the concept of the piratebay, not actually giving people anything, but directing to stuff)

(the DMCA is evil)

3rdalbum
April 26th, 2010, 12:27 PM
If you're selling hundreds of computers, then seek legal advice. WANL (We Are Not Lawyers).

P4man
April 26th, 2010, 12:28 PM
Actually, it might not be that bad to price the ubuntu systems close or equal in price to the windows systems and sell the fluendo stuff by default.

If you price the windows machines $135 more expensive than the ubuntu setups, you risk getting quite a few customers buying them just because its cheaper without having any idea what they are getting in to and you will be inundated with questions and complaints. Id even consider going one step further, price them the same and offer a canonical support contract in the deal (unless you do that support yourself, in which case its also completely reasonable to charge for that).

Just give them the option to opt out of the codecs and support contract for those that want to (and tell them they can get support here, and install medibuntu on their own if they so chose to).

One last point; AFAIK canonical is just a reseller of the fluendo stuff. You might want to talk to them directly and get a better deal.

chappajar
April 26th, 2010, 04:18 PM
...
As some of you may know, Australia signed a free trade agreement with the US a few years back. As part of this agreement we also agreed to the terms of the US DMCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act).
...

Kircher, Australia is not, I repeat NOT, a party to the DCMA, nor is it applicable in Australia.

Australia agreed to be bound by the WIPO Internet Treaties (which does not include the DCMA) in the FTA.

This really is a horrible rumour that you are perpetuating here, a little more research is required before furture posts, IMHO.

In case I haven't been clear enough: the DCMA is not Australian law, either directly or indirectly, and no-one in Australia is in any way affected by the DCMA.

chappajar
April 26th, 2010, 04:22 PM
Kircher, Australia is not, I repeat NOT, a party to the DCMA, nor is it applicable in Australia.

Australia agreed to be bound by the WIPO Internet Treaties (which does not include the DCMA) in the FTA.

This really is a horrible rumour that you are perpetuating here, a little more research is required before furture posts, IMHO.

In case I haven't been clear enough: the DCMA is not Australian law, either directly or indirectly, and no-one in Australia is in any way affected by the DCMA.

A link for the WIPO reference: http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/outcomes/08_intellectual_property.html

del_diablo
April 26th, 2010, 05:46 PM
PFFFFFFFFFFFF!
The GPL does a small enforcement in redistrobuting. Remeber that.

kircher
April 26th, 2010, 05:47 PM
Well Chappajar, thankyou for providing that link, however; it actually confirms some of what I was saying. I should have rephrased my first post. I did not specifically say that we signed the DMCA. I said that as part of the FTA we agreed to the terms of it, which we most definitely did, at least a lot if it anyway. I should have said "we agreed to some of the terms" not "the terms". I was basing it on research I had done, specifically:

http://news.cnet.com/Trade-deal-exports-DMCA-down-under/2100-1028_3-5291283.html
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2004/08/03/australia_welcomes_american_dmca
and
http://www.samba.org/~tridge/fta_statement.html

I found those by googling "DMCA Australia".

I am not an expert in all things legal, so I was unaware that the ideal source would be dfat.gov.au. In my experience it has been a nightmare navigating government websites.

Anyway, one of the "key points" in the link you provided is:

Tighter controls on circumventing technological protection of copyright material together with a mechanism for examining and, as necessary, introducing public interest exceptions in relation to technological protection measures, along with a transition period to provide the opportunity for public submissions in this area,. Note: The Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Schedule 12) implements a new technological protection measures scheme from 1 January 2007.

The amendment says on page 191, Schedule 12 Part 1:

116AO Manufacturing etc. a circumvention device for a
16
technological protection measure
17
(1) An owner or exclusive licensee of the copyright in a work or other
18
subject-matter may bring an action against a person if:
19
(a) the person does any of the following acts with a device:
20
(i) manufactures it with the intention of providing it to
21
another person;
22
(ii) imports it into Australia with the intention of providing
23
it to another person;
24
(iii) distributes it to another person;
25
(iv) offers it to the public;
26
(v) provides it to another person;
27
(vi) communicates it to another person; and
28
(b) the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the
29
device is a circumvention device for a technological
30
protection measure; and
31
(c) the work or other subject-matter is protected by the
32
technological protection measure.
33

This seems to confirm that libdvdcss would be illegal for me to distribute in Australia, because it is a circumvention device as defined in the definitions of schedule 12.

So please don't say I'm spreading horrible rumours. And as you can see I have done research, so you don't really have any right to comment on when and how I should post on this site now or in the future. I'm basing what I have said on research. I admit, my sources weren't as solid as the one you provided me, but my intent is not to spread lies, only truth, and I want to learn what I can do to legally distribute Ubuntu. The fact remains that Australia did agree to more than just the WIPO treaties in the FTA. Maybe not specifically the DMCA, but there are big similarities between the DMCA and what we agreed to. However, the information you have provided me has been very helpful, so thank you.

Excuse the poor formatting of that big quote. Here is the source of the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/Bills1.nsf/0/2642587B661E9782CA25721000025117?OpenDocument

kircher
April 26th, 2010, 05:48 PM
PFFFFFFFFFFFF!
The GPL does a small enforcement in redistrobuting. Remeber that.
Sorry del diablo, I don't understand what you mean there.

P4man
April 26th, 2010, 05:59 PM
I just read this on wikipedia:


libdvdcss is not to be confused with DeCSS. While DeCSS uses a cracked DVD player key to perform authentication, libdvdcss uses a generated list of possible player keys. If none of them works (for instance, when the DVD drive enforces region coding) a brute force algorithm is tried so the region code of a DVD is ignored. Unlike DeCSS, libdvdcss has never been legally challenged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libdvdcss

Dont let that stop you from finding out about its legality in your country, but you will probably not get a definite answer until someone actually tries it in court (which is much more likely to happen in the US first, and against someone other than a PC vendor shipping a few PCs with it installed when it ships on 100.000s of linux distro's).

iponeverything
April 26th, 2010, 06:04 PM
Provide every Ubuntu PC with a legal disclaimer and instructions.

sdowney717
April 26th, 2010, 06:16 PM
Link and or create their help bookmarks to relevant pages here on how to install codecs etc...
The default plain Ubuntu ought to be totally legal anywhere as was posted earlier.
I dont think you should even put a script to install codecs. It ought to be totally on their own initiative
if and when they choose to install legally questionable software.

madjr
April 26th, 2010, 06:40 PM
I already have VLC and I just put a DVD in, and the system (gOS) installed a GStreamer plug in automatically and just played the DVD straight away. Simple!

while gOS is outdated now, Ubuntu does same job

you're not distributing anything

If an user wants to play a DVD they have 2 options:

they can purchase powerDVD or they can install the codecs at their own risk (you warned them, but most will go this route anyway, is fast and easy)

Give them the link to powerDVD and let them know they can buy it as an option with the computer (just add +$35 to the charge, but you might get it much cheaper)

powerDVD is also better software, so the cost might be worth it for some.

"In a similar way, Nintendo has not licensed this algorithm for use in the Wii game console and that is why it is unable to play DVD movies. In this case the Wii is a commercially available device but presumably Nintendo felt in this modern day most households have a DVD player and would prefer not to have the licensing fee tacked onto the Wii’s price if they rarely or never make use of it.

Nevertheless, you can play DVDs under Linux – just not out-of-the-box. You must perform some steps which I’ll tell you over the page."

Article Link at http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26652/1231/

@kircher

you dont need a lawyer for this, just common sense and disclaimers + option to purchase the software

Ubuntu also has a disclaimer, so they'll be warned twice.

nintendo had no problems. It's true that most prefer to use their standalone DVD player and big screen TVs

a partner and i sold linux pcs and never had problems either

chappajar
April 27th, 2010, 03:57 AM
Well Chappajar, thankyou for providing that link, however; it actually confirms some of what I was saying. I should have rephrased my first post. I did not specifically say that we signed the DMCA. I said that as part of the FTA we agreed to the terms of it, which we most definitely did, at least a lot if it anyway. I should have said ''we agreed to some of the terms'' not ''the terms''. I was basing it on research I had done, specifically:

http://news.cnet.com/Trade-deal-exports-DMCA-down-under/2100-1028_3-5291283.html
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2004/08/03/australia_welcomes_american_dmca
and
http://www.samba.org/~tridge/fta_statement.html

I found those by googling ''DMCA Australia''.

I am not an expert in all things legal, so I was unaware that the ideal source would be dfat.gov.au. In my experience it has been a nightmare navigating government websites.

Anyway, one of the ''key points'' in the link you provided is:


The amendment says on page 191, Schedule 12 Part 1:

This seems to confirm that libdvdcss would be illegal for me to distribute in Australia, because it is a circumvention device as defined in the definitions of schedule 12.

So please don't say I'm spreading horrible rumours. And as you can see I have done research, so you don't really have any right to comment on when and how I should post on this site now or in the future. I'm basing what I have said on research. I admit, my sources weren't as solid as the one you provided me, but my intent is not to spread lies, only truth, and I want to learn what I can do to legally distribute Ubuntu. The fact remains that Australia did agree to more than just the WIPO treaties in the FTA. Maybe not specifically the DMCA, but there are big similarities between the DMCA and what we agreed to. However, the information you have provided me has been very helpful, so thank you.

Excuse the poor formatting of that big quote. Here is the source of the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/Bills1.nsf/0/2642587B661E9782CA25721000025117?OpenDocument

I'm not saying that you intended to perpetuate a false rumour, or that you knew it was false; only that you perpetuated it.

The fact remains that Australia did NOT ''agree to the terms of the DCMA'' (or to some terms of the DCMA). The DCMA is an American/Canadian law, and has absolutely no relationship to Australia whatsoever, in any form.

Legality of libdvdcss is a separate issue. I don't know if you can legally distribute it, but if someone took action against you they'd have to show you knew that ''the work'' that would have it's DRM circumvented is copyrighted. With Australia's current stance on third party liability you'd probably be pretty safe (you have no way of knowing that anyone will do something illegal with what you are distributing).

Also you need a copyright holder to want to take action against you before you even need to worry about being in trouble.
Will movie studios sue you for allowing their customers to view legally obtained DVDs? I doubt it.

MrNatewood
April 27th, 2010, 07:27 AM
I believe you are covered by the standard warnings that come with ubuntu. At most you would need the adjust them locally.

When you try to play a closed-format file on ubuntu you are greeted with a message that sass it might be illegal in your area to install the codecs and it's the user's responsibility if he's breaking the law.

I don't see how you can be liable with that.

P4man
April 27th, 2010, 07:39 AM
I believe you are covered by the standard warnings that come with ubuntu. At most you would need the adjust them locally.

When you try to play a closed-format file on ubuntu you are greeted with a message that sass it might be illegal in your area to install the codecs and it's the user's responsibility if he's breaking the law.

I don't see how you can be liable with that.

Certain closed formats (like MP3) requires codecs which may fall under patents in the US. playing encrypted dvd's requires a library that circumvents ("cracks") the copy protection which might be illegal in the US under DMCA law. Very different things.

socceroos
April 27th, 2010, 08:20 AM
MrNatewood has hit the nail on the head.

Ubuntu already ships by default with a warning regarding the installation of the third-party software in question.

Perhaps you were considering shipping this software in the default install so the end user didn't have to do it? If so, then the safest way to do it would be to pass on the cost to the customer.

To be honest, though, I don't think it would *ever* be a problem even if you did ship this software in the default install. Seriously.

I live in Australia, btw, and am interested in your shop! =)

You got a website?

kircher
April 29th, 2010, 11:17 AM
Thank you for all the advice. As I said ultimately I will have to seek legal counsel. At this stage all Ubuntu systems will probably be installed in the default setting. I'll provide information on the enabling of non-free components, but leave it up to the end-user to do as they see fit.