Slashdot Log In
UK Government Confiscates Firefox CDs
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Feb 23, 2006 09:39 AM
from the can't-just-give-it-away dept.
from the can't-just-give-it-away dept.
Alsee writes "The idea that Free Software can be sold has some government officials perplexed. Times Online has the story. A UK Trading Standards officer contacted the Mozilla Foundation to report catching a business selling copies of Firefox. The organization confiscated the CDs with the intent to prosecute said business. When informed that such distribution was authorized, the officer first expressed disbelief that Free Software could be sold then said 'If Mozilla permit the sale of copied versions of its software, it makes it virtually impossible for us, from a practical point of view, to enforce UK anti-piracy legislation'."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Licenses (Score:5, Informative)
As Section 3.5 states: Do not confuse the MPL with the GPL, folks. Well, Mozilla falls under the MPL. I'm not sure any other software falls under this license. For that reason, anyone distributing software that falls under other licenses should be investigated. I'm not sure how people distributing Mozilla legally at a charge prohibits you from arresting people who are distributing copyrighted software which they made their own copies of.
Re:Licenses (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Licenses (Score:4, Funny)
Everyone who buys it is reducing load on the download servers and mirrors
I download one copy for every copy i burn.
Those who actually offer some added value will sell better. This encourages Firefox development (in the same way that Red Hat, Mantiva, Novell, IBM and many others have contributed to Linux).
I only sell it to Microsoft employees who promise to burn every copy.
In many places, offering a product for sale implies a certain amount of warantee which cannot be disclaimed, on the part of the seller (lemon laws, etc). This gives consumers leverage by which to demand things like security updates, which further incents distributors to participate in Firefox development.
I tell them the security update warnings are spammers, and that I won't update it for them.
Many people in the world with very slow, noisy connections to the Internet cannot reasonably download something as large as Firefox.
I give them Opera.
For every dollar (or Euro or Pound) spent on Firefox CDs, there is more measurable sale of open source software.
Sales are unregistered with tax, etc, authorities.
Overseas sales will encourage better regionalization enhancements.
If someone from overseas orders a copy, I send them an empty box.
Since you can download it for free, those purchasing it are likely people who would NOT have used Firefox otherwise (perhaps they just don't trust free software, or perhaps they would not have come acorss it other than on a shelf).
To encourage sales, I have a large advert in my shop window stating that the MD5 sums on Mozilla's website are incorrect because Mozilla is an increasing target of hackers and they regularly hack the site and put malicious copies in the place of genuine copies. Only I have genuine copies, only I, only for $50.99.
I have too much time on mu hands, you insensitive clod!
Re:Licenses (Score:5, Informative)
In that respect, it's no different than the MPL or the multitude of similar open source licenses ou there.
Re:Licenses (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, restricting commercial distribution would make the software non-free (see the FSF's free software definition, the Debian Free Software Guidelines or the OSI's open-source definition).
Re:Licenses (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Licenses (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Licenses (Score:5, Funny)
Man, there's a particularly unfortunate abbreviation.
Re:Licenses (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IANAL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Licenses (Score:5, Funny)
The big law firm of Morrison & Foerster..."Over one thousand lawyers worldwide"
That's a lot of mo fos
Re:Licenses (Score:5, Funny)
Morrison & Foerster [mofo.com].
Attorney A "Who are we up against?"
Attorney B "It's the MoFo's."
Attorney A "That just great!"
I guess if you need an attorney, you'll want one that's a real MoFo.
Re:Licenses (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Licenses (Score:5, Informative)
If they were distributing a different browser and calling it Mozilla or Firefox then they'd run afoul of trademark law. What's at issue here is copyright, which is added to by the MPL that explicitly allows for copying.
The fact that the cops can't comprehend what's allowed via the MPL is humorous, as is their failure to understand how it relates to copyright with no additional permissive license.
What they mean to say is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, they can't do their job in a proper way.
Re:What they mean to say is.... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I think she doesn't know anything about free software (or software for that matter) and her assumption was actually that if you don't hold the copyright on a work and are copying it you must be breaking the law, so, actually, she seems to not to be able to comprehend the idea of a copyright license, full stop (i.e.: she thinks that copyright shouldn't allow you to pass on your exclusive right to copy to a third party).
It is as if she thinks it is the duty of everyone to keep their works a secret and not publish them (otherwise the masses might learn stuff). I wonder when she'll find out about the public domain: an evil conspiracy by the government to allow information to be copied by anyone without anyone having the right to restrict this immoral act. No one tell her about these evil things called libraries...
Although, being in a nortoriously corrupt UK TS dept., I'm not surprised that she is scared of the idea of freedom of information and thinks freedom of expression is immoral somehow.
It's even better than that (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine a "negotation" between, for instance, a team of 30 Sony corporate attorneys in New York, versus a 12 year old in Arkansas who just wants to listen to Eminem. One where the outcome is never recorded but always presumed. And now you see how absurd the legal fiction of the EULA really is.
And here is our biggest gift ever. unintentionally, the government itself is admitting that it is "virtually impossible" to handle this situation.
Everybody throw a party.
This wild-west/mafia nonsense with "IP law" needs to stop, because it's hurting our economy and rendering us unable to compete effectively against countries with sane, normal laws.
The GPL has been a wonderfully subversive attempt to fight the system within the system, but ultimately even the FSF will tell you that "the proliferation of licenses" is a problem. No fucking duh it's a "problem;" it plainly illustrates how completely fucking ridiculous, egotistical and largely futile the whole concept of a "license" is.
The powers of copyright holders to make licenses need to be delineated; EULAs need to be explicitly outlawed. Types of copyright exercise should be explicitly codified (a "whitelist" of acceptable options): i.e. conventional, bsd, gpl, etc. Then things can begin to be sane. No more EULA fine print preventing "benchmarking" or "backups," or "disclaimers of fitness" for commercial products... and all such games. And don't even get me started on software patents, a concept so obviously corrupt and ridiculous that we are frankly a laughingstock for ever considering them, let alone occasionally honoring them...
HOW TO: Eliminate ELUA's (Score:4, Insightful)
If I paid for Microsoft Office and all I got was the right to use it, it's pretty worthless to the taxing authority in terms of property tax. But whoever owns the license is leasing property in their taxing jurisdiction. They own property tax based on the ELUA. So if Office sells for $500, a certain amount of personal property tax needs to be paid by Microsoft each year.
Re:It's even better than that (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm mostly in agreement with what you say, but I'd just like to clarify that there is a huge difference between licenses like BSD, GPL, etc. (free and open source software licenses) and the typical commercial EULA: the GPL need not be agreed to in order to use the software. At worst, you don't abide by the GPL and are bound by the copyright law of your land. If you do abide by the terms of the GPL, then you are granted permission to do things (probably) forbidden by copyright law such as copying and redistribution. The EULA on the other hand, attempts to force you (legally dubiously) to agree to it as a precondition to using the software. It attempts to impose restrictions over and above those imposed by copyright law. Like you, I find this practice heinous. A pack of lawyers vs. the average Joe who has already bought and paid for the software does not seem a fair negotiation.
Two questions: When copyright expires on a piece of software, am I still bound by the EULA (assume for a moment that the EULA is a valid contract)? I suppose I could read the EULA to search for an expiration... And second, is there any commercially available proprietary software that does not include a EULA (other than the default copyright restrictions)? I think I would buy it just on principle.
Re:It's even better than that (Score:4, Insightful)
Licenses are NOT the problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What they mean to say is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd certainly expect a traffic cop to read the speed limit sign before writing a speeding ticket.
No-one expects the British Inquisition ! (Score:5, Funny)
"If your software's free... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"If your software's free... (Score:5, Funny)
"If Mozilla permit the sale of copied versions of its software, it makes it virtually impossible for us, from a practical point of view, to enforce UK anti-piracy legislation"
reminds me of something I heard once in a meeting at work. A middle manager, upon being told a single, sensible and direct way to solve a problem, blurted out:
"But we need options so we can make decisions!"
Re:"If your software's free... (Score:3, Funny)
Not the first time (Score:4, Interesting)
AIK
Re:Not the first time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not the first time (Score:4, Interesting)
I was convicted of encouraging minors to participate in making the roadsides clean of litter. Appearing soon in a federal court near you.
AIK
why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Beer (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Free Beer (Score:4, Funny)
Giving out beer for free is illegal. I am guessing due to some copyright issue with the originating monk.
eBay also did/does this to some extent (Score:5, Interesting)
This is SO funny (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm, might have something to do with this (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks like someone on high has been told to allocate resources to copyright infringment. You can see how the idea that people can sell things which are free would confuse PC Plod.
Here's hoping they get equally confused with the idea you can buy something, but not be able to do what you want with your property and in consequence arrest the chairman of EMI.
Hilarious... (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, see Gervase's blog entry [mozillazine.org], and it is also on digg [digg.com].
submitter: RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
The blurb is highly misleading. No CDs were confiscated. Rather, the officer did the right thing: upon uncountering the "suspicious" distributor, he first contacted the copyright owner (the Mozilla Foundation) to ask what gives. In particular, no confiscated CDs had to be returned.
As another poster above points out, the Trading Standards Office should have been able to figure this out by reading the license, but you cannot fault them for going to the people who licensed the software initialy.
Re:submitter: RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
The other way arround happens also by the way. Some gpl software gets retagged by someone who thinks he can getaway with it. You cannot sell that one because you do not have a valid licence for the software. (even if you say you have. )
response (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the crux, Miss, what is/is not permitted regarding software is entirely a function of the license that is agreed to by the involved parties. There is no blanket set of rules - what one party's license prohibits, another party's license may encourage or require. The 'general advice' you should give to businesses is that they need to read and understand the licenses associated with whatever software that they are involved with (something you apparently had difficulty doing yourself)
At least she followed procedure (Score:3, Informative)
At least she tried to confirm this before running out to arrest people. She may not understand WHY she has to confirm a violation of the licensing agreement... but the fact that she followed the procedure indicates that we aren't all about to be raided for having "pirated" copies of Firefox on our computers.
There is certainly no shortage of dense people in the world. But that's why we have procedures... we say "do this! this way!" And they do... even if it makes them incredulous. Bravo standards-bearers! Bravo.
It's a sad day (Score:3, Insightful)
It's even sadder to realize that the bullspit around "copying is illegal" appearantly managed to take precendence over actual and factual law in the heads of the executive branch.
What the ...? What kind of logic is he using?!! (Score:5, Interesting)
If Mozilla permit the sale of copied versions of its software, it makes it virtually impossible for us, from a practical point of view, to enforce UK anti-piracy legislation.
This is one of the most asinine things I've heard in a long time! Just because one piece of software says that it can be distributed even though it's free does not mean that suddenly anti-piracy legislation is unenforceable! In fact, anti-piracy legislation does not even come into play here because there was no piracy going on! Either that quote is being taken way out of context or they are actually trying to say that not being able to prosecute those who copy Firefox means that they won't be able to prosecute those who copy Windows, Photoshop, or other programs that clearly fall under anti-piracy legislation!
In fact, this kind of distribution and marketing has been going on since the Commodore 64 days! Free software would be distributed for about $2 per floppy disk at local computer meets to cover the cost of media and duplication. In fact, that's how a lot of PC shareware got distributed. I used to write some shareware apps that were free to distrubte, just not free to use. I sent disks all over the country to PC user groups with permission to copy and charge a nominal fee for their efforts. I was still getting registration fees a few years after I stopped supporting the software, so that method clearly worked and there was nothing illegal about it. But there certainly would have been laws broken if those user groups tried to do the same with Lotus 1-2-3 or dBase!
Please tell me that I've misunderstood something here!
This kind of logic... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the most asinine things I've heard in a long time! Just because one piece of software says that it can be distributed even though it's free does not mean that suddenly anti-piracy legislation is unenforceable!
I don't disagree with you that it's asinine, but you have to understand it from their point of view.
The word is coming down from on high to start policing copyright infringement, because some politicians are getting paid by the RIAA (or the UK equivalent). So government kicks into action to try to police that sort of thing. They encounter somebody burning copies of software and selling those. This is an instant red flag to them. Then they come to find out that not only is it totally legit, but actually encouraged.
In their mind, this makes the main thing they're looking for suddenly not always illegal. They don't know the license on each and every piece of software or other copyrighted material. They are looking to do their job in the easiest way possible. They were thinking somebody selling burned CD's = illegal. They were operating on that assumption. Now they are told that they must actually verify what's on those CD's and the licensing terms.
The "virtually unenforcable" is the giveaway line here. It's still perfectly enforcable, this woman just found out that it's not easy to enforce. They could see two people selling burned CD's, and one of them is legal while the other is not. The actions, on the surface, are identical, now they actually have to do work to determine legality.
It's a simple failure of comprehension of the task that they have been asked to do. They thought it was simple, but it's not, and they're understandably in shock at that fact. Okay, you and me understand copyright, and we knew this from the beginning, but this person clearly didn't. That is the disturbing part, and shows that the message being put forth by the RIAA is taking greater hold. Violating copyright is indeed illegal, but what constitutes that violation is more complex than simply burning CD's and selling (or giving) them to other people. The message they're pushing is that it's always wrong, and that message is getting through.
Incredulous ignoramus ignores issue (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't that something! Maybe you didn't get the memo, but this is how everything works now. Songs play on a radio, but people still buy CDs, because who wants to go recording all the songs. Books are given away for free online, but people pay for the bound version. Artists give tracks away on their website, but people still buy their CDs.
It's called making money off distribution and convenience of medium, rather than off the production of the intellectual property in question. In fact, considering that most software (proprietary or not) has a one-time "production" cost which exists independent of the number of copies distributed. this makes a bit of sense.
The reason we don't mind if people sell copies of Firefox is because the Firefox developers, if they care about the "marketplace" of their product at all (which many developers I'm sure do not), they care only about one thing: more people using the software. If that means Joe in Indiana who only has dial-up and won't download Firefox would rather pay someone $5 for a CD, so be it.
The question asked above shows the general "negative" attitude of the state of our anti-piracy laws. In particular, it seems unfathomable to "let" another company make money off something you give away for free. We're already giving the software away, so how is this in any way a "harm" to us, the developers of the software? We don't "lose" money when another company sells our free product; instead, we simply gain marketshare. Isn't that good enough reason to allow it? Or, put better, wouldn't it be downright silly to disallow it?
I wish more people would sell Firefox. Like, say, Linux machines loaded with Firefox, at Circuit City or Best Buy, for $200 less than the Windows counterparts. Then we'd really be losing money on the OEM deals, us open source developers! We'd have to call the FBI upon all those piraters.
This article is somehow refreshing. Dealing with open source software usually means you see how dark and restrictive the proprietary/commercial world has become.
I was waiting for this (Score:3, Interesting)
"I'm sorry, we granted permission implicitly to do that..."
It's a beautiful thing.
Now if I could get my luser friends to stop paying for warez by using Free Software, I'd be happy. Maybe I could make them pay for Free Software?
The real problem is (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I love Mozilla (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I love Mozilla (Score:3, Funny)
"It goes against the grain to have this sort of thing going on in Great Britain. We've partially dismantled free speech and the freedom of movement
Re: NOW it's a quote. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot is not about, and as long as I've been here never has been about, having the news first. Every story is a link to somewhere else - frequently the NYT, the Guardian, the BBC, Groklaw, the New Scientist or some guy's blog. Usually we've heard the news somewhere else before it hits Slashdot. Hell, most of us don't even bother reading the article; we read the summary and go 'Oh yeah, that - I heard that on [Site X]'.
What keeps us coming here is the discussion. Plagued though it is with trolls, and clueless though the typical moderators are, /.'s system nevertheless manages to disappear the most egregious flamers and pick out the worthwhile posts. And in any long /. discussion there are going to be a dozen or so clueful posters, and one or two experts in the field, giving much more in-depth analysis of the issue than you'll get from mainstream journalism.
If I read a story about something interesting on, say, the BBC's technology pages, I know it'll probably hit /. in a few hours, or at worst a couple of days, and once it does there'll be Interesting Discussion.