EU patents strike: end of libavcodec?

[Sirber]

As seen on mplayer (http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/) and on ffmpeg (http://ffmpeg.org/)...

This site has been shut down because of numerous patent violations in MPlayer. The other free software multimedia players are next.

The European commission has just passed its directive on software patents, violating democratic rules and procedures to the sole benefit of big non-European corporation and Ireland and to the detriment of small and medium sized businesses (which comprise 99% of the European software industry) and free software.

The European parliament will now be taking the last stand against software patents in a voting for which an absolute majority is needed. Such a majority is hard to come by in a parliament with a low attendance level.

But not all is lost yet as long as you decide it is time to make a difference and take action. This is our last opportunity to fend off software patents worldwide, there will be no second chance for the foreseeable future. Contact your local EU representatives and educate them why software patents are bad and why they must attend that parliament session to vote against them. For in-depth information and starting points to get active visit software patent page of the FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) and NoSoftwarePatents.com.
:scared:

[Leo 69]

The other free software multimedia players are next.

http://forums.overclockers.ru/images/smiles/icon_spy.gif

This is absolutely weird
[edit]
software patentability will not have a major impact on Mplayer, as most mpeg patents are NOT software patents. :)

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=32385

[Neo Neko]

This actually does open them up to more danger. They were kind of liable with the process pattents. But making the processes speciffically pattentable in regards to software is a substantial and new development.

I would however agree with gabriel that this does not really change mplayers position. But not because of the pattents. Rather because of the free nature of the project. This is something Gabriel has alot to speak on. As Lame has already gone through a trial by fire on this subject.

To put it bluntly this is a publicity stunt on Mplayers part. But for good reason and I support them in it for now. For free projects there is not alot of direct danger posed. But what happens when someone tries to use a similar project to legally make some money. They immediatly become a target of bigger corporate bullies. Some of which like SCO don't require any provocation or valid claims to attack. This is an effort to try and discourage businesses from forming around open source products the way IBM and Novell have taken to Linux. This is more or less an attack to keep free software from intruding further into what has traditionally benn commercial software space. These commecial companies don't like to compete.

[neo75903]

still dont get it ...

[Joe Fenton]

They're showing you what they think you will see if software patents make it all the way through the process - namely, MPlayer shut down.

It's not REALLY shut down. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, there's a link to enter the normal mplayer page. This is an attempt to draw attention to the patent issue by pretending they've been shut down.

[Mug Funky]

yikes.

i really hope this doesn't happen for real. too bad Australia isn't in the EU.

i'm not sure how my country stands on software patents, but i'd say it has them.

of course, being illegal could give OSS projects a certain mystique... either that or they'll be labelled as terrorist organisations and hunted down by those oh-so-amusing RIAA fake police.

to be honest, i think that even if all this stuff becomes illegal, there'll be enough people out there willing to break a stupid law to keep a fair amount of free software going. but it would never be usable in business, which is a real shame.

i think projects like FFmpeg et al need something like industry "patronage", where legalities, patent fees and a lot of et cetera get handled by a company that in return gets the right to use a good product commerically for free. i wonder if this is possible, and just how crippling patent fees can be? how much is it to license an MPEG-2 encoder? if it's less than the cost of pro hardware, than it could well be worth doing.

[dragongodz]

i'm not sure how my country stands on software patents, but i'd say it has them.
yes we have them and even worse since the FTA. i havent checked to see any last changes though but i doubt they change the general jist.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/06/1091732077487.html?oneclick=true

i say good on Mplayer. people need a wake up call on how serious the worst case scenario could be.

[stephanV]

Nothing changes. Mplayer/ffmpeg will not shutdown because of software patents, because the majority of patents they are "violating" are not software patents. It's good to make people aware of this issue, but I'm not sure if this is the way to do it.

[Mug Funky]

well, i was ambivalent when i first saw it, but then i thought of just how lazy we all are when it comes to this stuff - we're happy to go on about how we're being screwed, but very few of us actually contact our MPs etc - something like this is a good reminder of just how important it is that we don't lie back and think of england while we're molested by big business.

damn... when was the last time i went to a good old fashioned protest? seems like ages! i'm not that much of an activist, but these things are like free rock festivals :)

[dragongodz]

i was ambivalent when i first saw it, but then i thought of just how lazy we all are when it comes to this stuff - we're happy to go on about how we're being screwed
yes this is the problem. unless something hits a person where it hurts right away they will generally take no action and then complain once its too late.

It's good to make people aware of this issue, but I'm not sure if this is the way to do it.
since this process has been floating around as news for quite some time what other way would you suggest ? the mplayer site is trying to show people what they can possibly expect to see in a worst case scenario. no mplayer itself may not suffer that but that is no reason to shrug it off. the attitude of "i use program x and its not effected so i dont care" is one that needs to be battled because it can have an effect on other software ,both present(being discontinued) and future(never being devloped at all). a bit of a shock to some people may help get them thinking about it more seriously than a simple bunch of news stories.

[stephanV]

But why now, when it already seems its mostly too late anyway? There are doom9 threads discussing this issue already for quite some time. It's not like this happened all of a sudden. I see nothing more than a nice stunt, not really a sign of political awareness.

[dragongodz]

But why now, when it already seems its mostly too late anyway?
because it isnt too late. it is right at the point of being so yes which is why something needs to be done now.

I see nothing more than a nice stunt, not really a sign of political awareness.
ahhh we have a mind reader amongst us. really your statement says more about you than the people at mplayer and the awareness they are trying to raise. :D

[stephanV]

Originally posted by dragongodz
because it isnt too late. it is right at the point of being so yes which is why something needs to be done now.
But it is, the European parliament is a laughable institute, excelling in its non-transparancy and inactiveness (and its rather powerless anyway). If you have to rely on that, good luck.


ahhh we have a mind reader amongst us. really your statement says more about you than the people at mplayer and the awareness they are trying to raise. :D
Too late, too little. Like i said, nice stunt.

[bond]

my views on this:

1) the decision has been made and will surely not been reversed, no matter what people do or say on the net

2) if you dont like what the representative of your country at the EU voted for (yeah the EU = the member countries), simply dont vote for his/her party at the next elections

3) software patents are here and will stay, people should recognize this not as the bad thing, but as the opportunity. if you have developed something "software patentable", why not patent it? having it patented doesnt mean that noone will be able to use it anymore or that it becomes "closed" or whatever bad words you can imagine

[Joe Fenton]

Originally posted by bond
my views on this:

3) software patents are here and will stay, people should recognize this not as the bad thing, but as the opportunity. if you have developed something "software patentable", why not patent it? having it patented doesnt mean that noone will be able to use it anymore or that it becomes "closed" or whatever bad words you can imagine

Patenting something costs money. I can't afford to get anything I write patented. For someone like me, I'd have to take it to a company willing to get it patented for me - usually meaning I sign it over to them for a certain amount of money. Then the patent is no longer mine and contributes to the problem of companies accumulating patents to use against competition.

Now assume I can afford to patent something myself. Now assume it's something useful. Some company will want to acquire the patent to use against the competition. So they send around their contacts to see if I'm willing to sell it. If not, they send over their lawyers and threaten to sue over something assinine if I don't sell. It doesn't matter if their lawsuit has any merit at all, I can't afford any kind of lawsuit, period. So you either sell it to them, or you go bankrupt trying to fight them and they get it cheap when your assests are liquidated in bankruptcy court.

In these days of outright fraudlent patenting, your only hope is to give/sell your patent to someone who will hopefully not use the patent offensively and has the resources to fight the vultures.

So software patents ARE a bad thing, and unless you sell-out, don't expect anything positive to result from patenting anything yourself. No, the BEST thing to do is make your software GPL and get it published. Published material cannot be patented (except by the original author who must submit an application within a year of publication).

There needs to be a national GPL publication that does nothing but publish source code. Simply putting your source on a web page doesn't count as publication in the U.S. - you have to have it in a real, honest-to-goodness, published periodical. Throw in a few reviews and interviews and a DVD of all the code in the issue and you'd have something that probably sold pretty well. It would also then qualify as prior-art in future patent applications.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by bond
2) if you dont like what the representative of your country at the EU voted for (yeah the EU = the member countries), simply dont vote for his/her party at the next elections

Actually as I understand it admittedly limited as it may be the people most responsible for pushing the legislation through are "appointed" officials. In otherwords not elected. The elected officials are more or less playing the patsy here as it appears that they have no real power. Just goes to show democracy can be hijacked anywhere not just the USA. :p

Originally posted by Joe Fenton
Patenting something costs money. I can't afford to get anything I write patented. For someone like me, I'd have to take it to a company willing to get it patented for me - usually meaning I sign it over to them for a certain amount of money. Then the patent is no longer mine and contributes to the problem of companies accumulating patents to use against competition.

Now assume I can afford to patent something myself. Now assume it's something useful. Some company will want to acquire the patent to use against the competition. So they send around their contacts to see if I'm willing to sell it. If not, they send over their lawyers and threaten to sue over something assinine if I don't sell. It doesn't matter if their lawsuit has any merit at all, I can't afford any kind of lawsuit, period. So you either sell it to them, or you go bankrupt trying to fight them and they get it cheap when your assests are liquidated in bankruptcy court.

In these days of outright fraudlent patenting, your only hope is to give/sell your patent to someone who will hopefully not use the patent offensively and has the resources to fight the vultures.

So software patents ARE a bad thing, and unless you sell-out, don't expect anything positive to result from patenting anything yourself. No, the BEST thing to do is make your software GPL and get it published. Published material cannot be patented (except by the original author who must submit an application within a year of publication).

There needs to be a national GPL publication that does nothing but publish source code. Simply putting your source on a web page doesn't count as publication in the U.S. - you have to have it in a real, honest-to-goodness, published periodical. Throw in a few reviews and interviews and a DVD of all the code in the issue and you'd have something that probably sold pretty well. It would also then qualify as prior-art in future patent applications.

I'm not gonna deny that there are real problems with pattents as they exist now. But pattents are not all bad. Pattents like copyright are not bad ideas. They exist for a reason. Good reasons. The original language etc of both concepts was generally fair and balanced. And no this is not Fox News. What has happened simply put is that both of them have been hijacked by special intrest to their own ends. Just like democracy in the EU to an extent. What is needed is not abolishment but reformation. The question being. How do we as the generally powerless educated consumers we are bring about this change? The general public is blisfully ignorant. And the powers that be are rushing headlong to catastrophy. In otherwords both groups are ignorant. The general public for not noticing to care. And the powers that be for thinking they can tame the monster they created.

Nothing is going to change untill disaster is immenent. And even then it may only be after the disaster that things actually change. The question then becomes when and how bad will the catastrophy be?

[bond]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Actually as I understand it admittedly limited as it may be the people most responsible for pushing the legislation through are "appointed" officials. In otherwords not electedwell theoretically yes, practically no
practically the ministers of every country, who are responsible for the decisions in the council, are most of the time from the parties which hold the majority in the national parlaments

eg in germany, chancelor schröder, might not be directly elected, but he is only chancelor as his party got most of the votes in the last election and could form a government together with the green party.
so practically who gets minister is heavily depending on what parties people vote for

and if the minister of your country, who voted for software patents, was from party X, in coalition in your country with party Y, just dont vote for these two parties in the next elections

[Wilbert]

well theoretically yes, practically no practically the ministers of every country, who are responsible for the decisions in the council, are most of the time from the parties which hold the majority in the national parlaments
Although that's true, reality is a bit more compliated than that. In practice, the minister which is representing that country in the council can do/vote what ever he wants (or what the government wants). Unless its national parlament forces him to act in a certain way, which is (a) not always possible (i guess that depends on the national laws, it's not possible in the Netherlands for example), or (b) is possible but the minister doesn't really do it. In both cases the national parlament can try to send him with retirement, but they need a majority for that.

Look at it this way. In the Netherlands the majority in the parlament wants changes in the proposed software patent directive (also the government including the minister which represents us in the council want that, but i don't trust them), but he still managed to vote in favour in the council and got away with it. What's worse that minister is a member of a party which is against software patents.

Bond, you might be interested in this article http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050316114603315 which contains a bunch of reasons why software shouldn't be patentable.

[bond]

well in most countries the minister can not vote for what he wants practically (theoretically he could) as he is dependant on the majority of his coalition in the national parliament (he got the job because of this coalition; he can loose it, if he doesnt do what his party/coalition wants)
note that i am not talking about the "official"/"constitutional" ways how a national parlament could influence or hinder how a minister acts on the EU level, but about the informal things behind the scenes, mainly saying that a minister cant acts against the will of his/her party, over which he got his job

therefore, altough i have to admit i dont know the situation in the netherlands, i become sceptical when you say "the majority in the parlament is against it", because what people say and what people do is often very different
eg in austia there is the so called "freedom party" in the coalition and they love to talk about how evil all these decisions at the EU level are, in fact they are in the government and their ministers decide exactly these things they later critize, so you have to be careful to not believe this "populistic blabla" to be true

i know that there are countries where the government doesnt hold the majority in the parlament (eg denmark), but in most cases government and parlament majority is identical and therefore the elections for the parlament also heavily influence who becomes member of the government

[m1ckran]

I feel strongly about this subject but I think the idea of voting for a different political party over patents is a bit of a non-starter. If patents were the only issue to consider then there would be no problem but there are always other issues.

I have to say that I would be more likely to vote for someone who I felt was less likely to start another war, regardless of his stance on patents and copyright. It's a question of perspective.

In my experience, people are generally not interested in what goes on behind the scenes. It's often called apathy but it's probably more to do with prioritisation. But if patent and copyright laws stifle creativity, produce inferior products, and raise awkward restrictions on use, people will sooner or later give it up as a waste of time and spend their money elsewhere.