this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
1038 points (99.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

53939 readers
299 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-FiLiberapay


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 191 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Programs are mathematical proofs. If maths cannot be patented, software can't be, either.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Proofs can be represented as programs, not the other way around. Also, USA allows for algorithm parents, and algorithms are maths. While I agree with you, your reasoning is not correct.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (4 children)

No, the proof - program correspondence is in both directions.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 135 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You can hear a more detailed explanation on VLC's stance from the man himself (JB Kempf) in the FOSS pod S1E11 episode around 22:10.

Basically:

  • Not that many threats become lawsuits
  • Patent trolling is countered with publicly accessible prior art
  • Having no money is also a good deterrent
[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Thanks for the heads up about FOSS pod. Had not heard of it before.

[–] [email protected] 124 points 9 months ago (3 children)

This is all well and good, and where’s the Traffic Cone!?!

[–] [email protected] 35 points 9 months ago

Under Santa's hat

[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago

Asking the real questions here.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The cone is the logo for their most popular project (VLC media player), but this is a message from the organization as a whole, which has the logo you currently see. It is not specifically about that one project.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 9 months ago (1 children)

AFAIK european laws only allow to patent "inventions". Software is considered to be a series of "words" in whatever programming language you're using and, like sentences, it's not an invention and can't be patented.

On the other hand, software-assisted inventions can be patented as a whole.

With that said, software can still be considered a "work" protected by copyright laws.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

And that's fine. VLC does their own implementation of codecs so that's not an issue. It's the patents that make it an issue.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 9 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 149 points 9 months ago (2 children)

They don't recognize or value software patents because they aren't recognized by the government where the project is run from.

[–] [email protected] 61 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Seeing the last law on immigration :/

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

We got fucked real bad but we are coming for our rulers and will take down their previous work

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] 116 points 9 months ago (1 children)

French laws don't recognize software patents so videolan doesn't either. This is likely a reference to vlc supporting h265 playback without verifying a license. These days most opensource software pretends that the h265 patents and licensing fees don't exist for convenience. I believe libavcodec is distributed with support enabled by default.

Nearly every device with hardware accelerated h265 support has already had the license paid for, so there's not much point in enforcing it. Only large companies like Microsoft and Red Hat bother.

[–] [email protected] 76 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

They bother because they are US based and can be hounded by the patent ~~trolls~~ holders

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

let’s not go too far though… the holders of h264/h265 did put a lot of money and effort into developing the codec: a new actual thing… they are not patent trolls, who by definition produce nothing new other than legal mess

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

On the other hand, Fraunhofer is obnoxious enough about licensing and enforcement that companies like Google invested similar money and effort into developing open-source codecs just to avoid dealing with them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 74 points 9 months ago (16 children)

America has the odd idea that software is considered patentable. Since the developers of VLC are French, and software isn't considered patentable in France, they're saying "Va te faire enculer" to people who want to sue them.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Fuck that, I like that it's different. I feel a lot of the logos are too similar and boring.

This one has the retro feel to it.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't think they were complaining about the design. It invoked a memory of a beloved video game studio from the past that had a similar logo (Westwood Studios) and they are a bit heartbroken. I didn't take their comment as an actual complaint against VideoLAN's logo.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

graphic design is my passion

[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That’s not their stance, that’s French law

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

I think it both. Not all software or codec provider aim to apply the EU and French laws. Quite the contrary

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago

Utterly based.

load more comments
view more: next ›