From lennon@igrin.co.nz Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:07:56 +1300
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:07:56 +1300
From: Craig Whitmore lennon@igrin.co.nz
Subject: [Livid-dev] Re: ac3 decoding?

Whats the legal status of the ac3 decoding stuff?

Thanks
Craig Whitmore (craig@igrin.co.nz)
iGRIN Internet (http://www.igrin.co.nz)
Phone: + 64 9 430 3540    Fax: + 64 9 430 3775

From maroberts@dial.pipex.com Mon, 20 Dec 1999 23:27:21 +0000
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 23:27:21 +0000
From: Mark Roberts maroberts@dial.pipex.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Re: ac3 decoding?

Craig Whitmore wrote:
> 
> Whats the legal status of the ac3 decoding stuff?
> 
> Thanks
> Craig Whitmore (craig@igrin.co.nz)
> iGRIN Internet (http://www.igrin.co.nz)
> Phone: + 64 9 430 3540    Fax: + 64 9 430 3775
> 

AFAIK, both AC3 and MPEG2 decoding are perfectly legal.

Only the legality of css-auth is disputed [not necessily illegal, just
that we cannot afford a huge legal bill to test the case in court].

Regards
Mark Roberts

From pvolcko@concentric.net Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:05:30 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:05:30 -0500 (EST)
From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net
Subject: [Livid-dev] Re: ac3 decoding?

> AFAIK, both AC3 and MPEG2 decoding are perfectly legal.
> 
> Only the legality of css-auth is disputed [not necessily illegal, just
> that we cannot afford a huge legal bill to test the case in court].

Actually I'd contend it's the other way around.  an MPEG-2 decoder distributed
freely (as in no licensing) is legal.  The aC3 isn't as clear.  There are
patents on both Ac3 and MPEG-2.  Dolby licenses the AC3 patented technology at
all levels (they have been quiet to date, as far as the decoder's floating
around in Livid, though).  MPEG-2 is licensed by MPEGLA but they only license
to integrators (or playback application developers), the decoder proper is not
considered license bound in any way.

Ont he other hand the css-auth stuff, while perhaps arrived at in a morally
questionable way (neglecting the morally questionable licensing terms in place
for CSS, for the moment) there is no patented tech involved with it.  

To be sure any lawyer at any of the respective companies involved with all
this could very easily form a case to haul some of the developers into court
with.  The risk of this seems to diminish though with time I think, especially
with regard to the patented stuff, doesn't it?  Arent't here time limits
placed on patent holders in which they have to defend their patents after
being made aware of possible infringements?  

Paul Volcko
LSDVD