What is meant by "Restricted Formats"

[madmax.santana]

If they are restricted, why does Ubuntu let them install??? :P

I mean I know they have license complications and patents and stuff but shouldn't we call them anything other than restricted???

[amauk]

they are restricted due to the different laws in different regions

In America, Japan & Australia
if a piece of software is patented, you need to pay royalties to the patent holder for the privilege of using the software
(or any other software that "uses" the patented technology)

All other countries do not recognise software patents
and so no payment is required

They are restricted, as whether you can legitimately use the software without paying royalties depends on your location

[earthpigg]

If you are American, or in another country with horrible patent law, you are "supposed" to purchase this:

https://shop.canonical.com/product_info.php?products_id=242

by making that option available, and having you make the choice to install them without paying for them, the burden of liability moves from Canonical to madmax.santana.

[amauk]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1346427&highlight=patent

[madmax.santana]

OMG!!! Is that really true??? You have to pay to be able to PLAY media??? God!!! THAT IS HORRIBLE!

[amauk]

Yep
It's a one off payment
and for commercial software, the payment is included in the price

It's ironic really,
as Hollywood (when it first formed) was a band of rogue film-makers who refused to pay the royalties on Edison's patented inventions, the moving picture camera & celluloid film

They setup in California, as California did not recognise patents

[earthpigg]

OMG!!! Is that really true??? You have to pay to be able to PLAY media??? God!!! THAT IS HORRIBLE!

It's a "Legal Grey Area". It is almost certain that the FBI isn't going to come knocking on your door, and it is almost certain that you aren't going to get a letter demanding payment from any company.

That "almost certain" is what canonical is worried about, and why they set it up in such a way that madmax.santana assumes legal liability... there are millions of madmax.santanas, and only one Canonical.

It's much easier to go after one entity than millions.

So Mark Shuttleworth can say this:

"We didn't break any laws. Millions of our users did. And no, we do not have any idea who those millions of users are, because no one is required to register Ubuntu. K, I'm off to play space tourist now, you lawyers have fun!"

[madmax.santana]

It's not ironic. It's unjust... It is like demanding a tax for the hearing, sensing, seeing senses of a newborn.

There is no such law in the country where I live... Hahaha!!! I am glad to be here.

People use pirated software all the time and no one asks... Even in government organizations PCs are running cracked applications. Really, there is a guy in my organization especially employed to reverse engineer programs.

Well, I think it is justified in here because it is a third world country with a cheap currency. So most of the software are too costly.

Wait, can I discuss things like that in community cafe???

[earthpigg]

Wait, can I discuss things like that in community cafe???

you can't discuss how it is done. ie: "where should i go to get cracked versions of software?" would not be allowed.

but the existence of copyright infringing software isn't a secret, so it's existence can certainly be discussed.

it would not be a good idea to encourage such activity, though...

...as a cultural nuance, it's important to remember that Free and Open Source Software relies on enforced copyright law to exist. If we completely disregard copyright law, Ubuntu could not possibly exist - because 10 years ago, IBM or Intel would have forked Linux, spent millions improving it... and would have given nothing back. The GPL, because IBM and Intel must follow copyright law, prevents that. The millions has been and is still spent on improvements, but people like you and I benefit.

So, many of us generally "like" copyright law.

But, not patent law - which is what is relevant to your original post.

[cariboo]

OMG!!! Is that really true??? You have to pay to be able to PLAY media??? God!!! THAT IS HORRIBLE!

You pay to play when you buy a new computer with Windows on it too. Microsoft doesn't include any free codecs either, unless it is for their own formats.

[Lucradia]

You pay to play when you buy a new computer with Windows on it too. Microsoft doesn't include any free codecs either, unless it is for their own formats.

MP3 isn't their own format, yet they include it. MS just pays for you to use it.

[zekopeko]

You pay to play when you buy a new computer with Windows on it too. Microsoft doesn't include any free codecs either, unless it is for their own formats.

Even MS's codecs aren't free. They have to pay royalties for them.

[Dustin2128]

You have to pay to be able to PLAY media?
In theory: yes.
In practice: no.