Slashdot Mirror
Dolby Tells NetBSD Project: Don't Decode AC3
Mycroft writes: "There's a new entrant into the open source DVD legal battle: Dolby Laboratories. The NetBSD Project received this letter demanding that links to the open source ac3dec package be removed. What's next?" Probably what's next are yet more letters sent to every other project which enables decoding of content on platforms unsupported by the format licensors. Remember, you don't buy anything anymore -- you license it.
Until recently [I can't find them now] the entire AC3 specs were available online from Dobly's very own website. I downloaded them myself. Nowhere attached to these specs did it ever say the reader had to pay Dobly to implement the standard. Unless they can point to specific patents, they cannot take anyone to court over this. They gave their technology away with no restrictions.
Software patents are still against the rules in Europe. Move the software there and Dolby has no recourse.
"To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
I once angrily spouted out at a family gathering, "I hate capitalism, but I still want to own my own stuff!" What I didn't realize then is that I actually hated our current system, which technically isn't pure capitalism, or rather, doesn't capture capitalism's ideal of everyone fighting fairly and letting the markets take a logical course of action. Silly me, I used to think logic drove us humans. But what's the alternative? Socialism? Eww.
Before someone accuses me of being a karma whore - I'm already over the cap and sinking towards 50 fast!
No, in the case of patents, cleanroom doesn't matter at all. It's still a violation. Cleanroom is to protect from copyright violations.
Ok, the letter from Dolby was none to clear about what the actual problem was, but I suspect it's a patent infringement, not copyright. As such, it has little or nothing to do with the DMCA.
Put plainly, if you develop an encoding/decoding standard, and intelligently patent key parts of that standard, you own it. Doesn't matter if anybody reverse-engineers it in a clean room. You still own it until the patent expires.
The only ways around the patent are to find a completely different way of decoding/encoding the data (very unlikely, if the patent attorney did his job), or doing everything in a country in which the invention is not patented, does not have extradition treaties (etc) with the US, and is not part of whatever the hell that international convention on IP is called. Such countries generally aren't good places to live or work, for other reasons.
Is Dolby in the wrong? I'd have to see the details of the patent to say. It may be genuine innovation, or it may be more along the lines of the Amazon one-click patent.
I must put the specs on my site when I get home tonight.
Unfortunately, I don't know much about either what AC3 is all about, or what the patents claim, but a quick patent search on delphion showed two patents related to it.
So I don't think a cleanroom implementation would help at all. But there could be a way to work around the patents...
I'm getting a little sick of this notion that everything should be free. Dolby is fully within their rights to do whatever they damn well please with their technology. They developed it, they paid for it, and they own it.
The right of ownership doesn't end when you cross over from atoms to bits. That same right of ownership and property is what keeps me from taking the Linux source and making my own proprietary kernel. If someone did that, the Slashdot population would be shitting kittens for weeks and threatening to hang the company by their gonads. Dolby developed the AC3 standard, they have a right to expect the work they put into it to pay off, including charging to use it. Linus and Co. developed the Linux kernel, and they have a right to expect the work they put into it to pay off, including making it open for all to use.
It doesn't matter that ac3dec has uses other than piracy. It's still using someone elses property without their recompense or permission. While Dolby shouldn't sue over this issue (it would be pointless anyway, the genie's already out of the bottle...) there's no logical, rational justification for this crap about "corporations eroding our freedoms". It's as much a pile of bullshit as this "the GPL erodes your freedom" crap from Microsoft. When you create something, you have the right to do with it as you please, and just because you don't like what Dolby's doing with their product doesn't mean that you can force them to go along with your terms.
Dolby is alleging patent infringement. This is completely different from MPAA and RIAA actions which have relied on the DMCA. The DMCA invokes criminal penalties for what amounts to reverse-engineering of unpatented scrambling techniques.
I am not saying this Dolby vs. BSD conflict is a good thing, but it is consistent with how I have always understood patents to work. It's nothing new.
And remember that if they don't enforce their patents, they lose them. Who knows, maybe they will work out a sweetheart deal with the BSD folks. Then Dobly won't loose their right to charge license fees to others who make commercial products.
In short, I wouldn't panic yet.
MM
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
Going against the general Slashdot hivemind, I agree with Dolby in this. AC-3 (Dolby Digital) is patented technology, actually has required research and is very good, effective and inventive .
White papers are available from Dolby's website, and the technology is free for all to look at, with some exceptions (uses some noise reduction methods not described in the freely available white papers).
And, if Dolby wants, they can charge license fees. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd grant the LinuxTV team a free license with restrictions. Dolby labs isn't evil, but they're a business and mostly IPR company that licenses technology for manufacturers of consumer electronics. They have their own professional devices, though. So the license might have eg. restrictions about using the technology in an embedded system (eg. Nokia MediaTerminal, but Nokia can afford the license if they want to).
Also, from my discussion with Dolby Labs at one time when I was considering writing Pro Logic & Pro Logic II codec I would say that they are friendly. They required that they get the code for review before I'm allowed to say that it is Dolby anything compatible, but assured me that if it's free, open source software, they wouldn't charge licensing fees.
Well here is the information on licensing. License is $10,000 plus royalties on each sale. Looking through the steps they have to certify the product before granting the license so I am not sure how compatible that would be with open source.
Q.
This is funny.... According to Netcraft: The site www.dolby.com is running Stronghold/2.4.2 Apache/1.3.6 C2NetEU/2411 (Unix) PHP/4.0.3pl1 on BSD/OS.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
IIRC, the only case where someone was prohibited from linking-to allegedly illegal content was the MPAA vs. 2600... which is a sad precedent, but it's hardly a universally illegal activity.
BRx.
Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
Actually, you can (still?) buy "pro" audio DA / AD gear with no restrictions. For example, check out M-audio's pro-grade sound cards. There's even Linux drivers.
And they aren't too expensive. The basic "Audiophile 2496" card has 24 bit, 96 Khz DA and AD converters, SPDIF digital IO, and MIDI. Even better, the SPDIF connectors on that board give the user full control over the SCMS (aka "scums") serial copy management system. The
Sound Blaster Live's SPDIF, on the other hand, won't let you copy SCMS-protected content, even if you own the DVD it came from. Apparently this is normal for "consumer" grade stuff.
Get affordable "pro" gear while you still can!
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox