-<p>Mener Microsoft virkelig at foreldre og barn skal ta ansvar for at
-Microsoft ikke klarer å holde hemmelig og fortrolig informasjon for
-seg selv når de besøker en offentlig norsk skole? Jeg ville nektet
-plent å signert på en avtale med en slik klausul, da det er Microsofts
-ansvar å holde på sine hemmeligheter, og ikke noe mine barn og min
-familie tar på oss erstatningsansvar for hvis de kommer på avveie.</p>
-
-<p>Jeg lurer på om noen har fått se den nye samtykkeerklæringen?
-Inneholder den fortsatt klausul om hemmelighold? Hvor mange er det
-som hittil har signert på den gamle samtykkeerklæringen? Hvor har den
-vært brukt? Savnet svar på disse spørsmålene i artikkelen, da de som
-har signert på den gamle vel vil være bundet av den selv om ingen
-flere signerer på den.</p>
-
-<p>Lær kidsa koding er et glimrende initiativ, og jeg skulle ønske
-noen av <a href="http://www.nuug.no/">foreningen NUUGs</a> medlemmer
-hadde kapasitet til å delta i initiativet på NUUGs vegne. Selv tar
-jobb, familie og eksisterende prosjekter allerede all tid. Slik
-Microsoft tydeligvis holder på er det behov for noen med et annet syn
-på livet som bidragsyter her.</p>
-</description>
- </item>
-
- <item>
- <title>Opphavsretts-status for «Empty Socks» fra 1927?</title>
- <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Opphavsretts_status_for__Empty_Socks__fra_1927_.html</link>
- <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Opphavsretts_status_for__Empty_Socks__fra_1927_.html</guid>
- <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2014 14:30:00 +0100</pubDate>
- <description><p>For noen dager siden
-<a href="http://www.nb.no/Hva-skjer/Aktuelt/Nyheter/Tapt-filmskatt-fra-Disney-funnet-i-Nasjonalbiblioteket">annonserte
-Nasjonalbiblioteket gladnyheten</a> om at de i sine arkiver hadde
-funnet et nitratfilm-eksemplar av en 87 år gammel Disney-film ved navn
-Empty Socks, en film som tidligere var antatt tapt og der det i følge
-nyhetsmeldinger var kun ca. 25 sekunder bevart for ettertiden.
-Nasjonalbiblioteket hadde 5 minutter og 30 sekunder av filmen i sitt
-magasin. Dette er flott for bevaringen av verdens kulturarv. 5,5
-minutter mindre tapt enn vi trodde av vår felles historie.</p>
-
-<p>Men hvordan kunne filmen gå tapt, når arkivlovene i USA krevde at
-publiserte filmer på den tiden ble deponert i bibliotek? Forklaringen
-har jeg fra Lawrence Lessig og boken
-<a href="http://free-culture.cc/">Free Culture</a>, som jeg holder på
-<a href="https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig">å
-oversette til norsk</a>:</p>
+<p>The answer came quickly from Benjamin J. Myers, Licensing Associate
+with the MPEG LA:</p>
+
+<p><blockquote>
+<p>Thank you for your message and for your interest in MPEG LA. We
+appreciate hearing from you and I will be happy to assist you.</p>
+
+<p>As you are aware, MPEG LA offers our AVC Patent Portfolio License
+which provides coverage under patents that are essential for use of
+the AVC/H.264 Standard (MPEG-4 Part 10). Specifically, coverage is
+provided for end products and video content that make use of AVC/H.264
+technology. Accordingly, the party offering such end products and
+video to End Users concludes the AVC License and is responsible for
+paying the applicable royalties.</p>
+
+<p>Regarding Internet Broadcast AVC Video, the AVC License generally
+defines such content to be video that is distributed to End Users over
+the Internet free-of-charge. Therefore, if a party offers a service
+which allows users to upload AVC/H.264 video to its website, and such
+AVC Video is delivered to End Users for free, then such video would
+receive coverage under the sublicense for Internet Broadcast AVC
+Video, which is not subject to any royalties for the life of the AVC
+License. This would also apply in the scenario where a user creates a
+free online account in order to receive a customized offering of free
+AVC Video content. In other words, as long as the End User is given
+access to or views AVC Video content at no cost to the End User, then
+no royalties would be payable under our AVC License.</p>
+
+<p>On the other hand, if End Users pay for access to AVC Video for a
+specific period of time (e.g., one month, one year, etc.), then such
+video would constitute Subscription AVC Video. In cases where AVC
+Video is delivered to End Users on a pay-per-view basis, then such
+content would constitute Title-by-Title AVC Video. If a party offers
+Subscription or Title-by-Title AVC Video to End Users, then they would
+be responsible for paying the applicable royalties you noted below.</p>
+
+<p>Finally, in the case where AVC Video is distributed for free
+through an "over-the-air, satellite and/or cable transmission", then
+such content would constitute Free Television AVC Video and would be
+subject to the applicable royalties.</p>
+
+<p>For your reference, I have attached
+<a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/2015-07-07-mpegla.pdf">a
+.pdf copy of the AVC License</a>. You will find the relevant
+sublicense information regarding AVC Video in Sections 2.2 through
+2.5, and the corresponding royalties in Section 3.1.2 through 3.1.4.
+You will also find the definitions of Title-by-Title AVC Video,
+Subscription AVC Video, Free Television AVC Video, and Internet
+Broadcast AVC Video in Section 1 of the License. Please note that the
+electronic copy is provided for informational purposes only and cannot
+be used for execution.</p>
+
+<p>I hope the above information is helpful. If you have additional
+questions or need further assistance with the AVC License, please feel
+free to contact me directly.</p>
+</blockquote></p>
+
+<p>Having a fresh copy of the license text was useful, and knowing
+that the definition of Title-by-Title required payment per title made
+me aware that my earlier understanding of that phrase had been wrong.
+But I still had a few questions:</p>
+
+<p><blockquote>
+<p>I have a small followup question. Would it be possible for me to get
+a license with MPEG LA even if there are no royalties to be paid? The
+reason I ask, is that some video related products have a copyright
+clause limiting their use without a license with MPEG LA. The clauses
+typically look similar to this:
+
+<p><blockquote>
+ This product is licensed under the AVC patent portfolio license for
+ the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer to (a) encode
+ video in compliance with the AVC standard ("AVC video") and/or (b)
+ decode AVC video that was encoded by a consumer engaged in a
+ personal and non-commercial activity and/or AVC video that was
+ obtained from a video provider licensed to provide AVC video. No
+ license is granted or shall be implied for any other use. additional
+ information may be obtained from MPEG LA L.L.C.
+</blockquote></p>
+
+<p>It is unclear to me if this clause mean that I need to enter into
+an agreement with MPEG LA to use the product in question, even if
+there are no royalties to be paid to MPEG LA. I suspect it will
+differ depending on the jurisdiction, and mine is Norway. What is
+MPEG LAs view on this?</p>
+</blockquote></p>
+
+<p>According to the answer, MPEG LA believe those using such tools for
+non-personal or commercial use need a license with them:</p>
+
+<p><blockquote>
+
+<p>With regard to the Notice to Customers, I would like to begin by
+clarifying that the Notice from Section 7.1 of the AVC License
+reads:</p>
+
+<p>THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR
+THE PERSONAL USE OF A CONSUMER OR OTHER USES IN WHICH IT DOES NOT
+RECEIVE REMUNERATION TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC
+STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO") AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED
+BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM
+A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED
+OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE
+OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM</p>
+
+<p>The Notice to Customers is intended to inform End Users of the
+personal usage rights (for example, to watch video content) included
+with the product they purchased, and to encourage any party using the
+product for commercial purposes to contact MPEG LA in order to become
+licensed for such use (for example, when they use an AVC Product to
+deliver Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free Television or Internet
+Broadcast AVC Video to End Users, or to re-Sell a third party's AVC
+Product as their own branded AVC Product).</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, if a party is to be licensed for its use of an AVC
+Product to Sell AVC Video on a Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free
+Television or Internet Broadcast basis, that party would need to
+conclude the AVC License, even in the case where no royalties were
+payable under the License. On the other hand, if that party (either a
+Consumer or business customer) simply uses an AVC Product for their
+own internal purposes and not for the commercial purposes referenced
+above, then such use would be included in the royalty paid for the AVC
+Products by the licensed supplier.</p>
+
+<p>Finally, I note that our AVC License provides worldwide coverage in
+countries that have AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, including
+Norway.</p>
+
+<p>I hope this clarification is helpful. If I may be of any further
+assistance, just let me know.</p>
+</blockquote></p>
+
+<p>The mentioning of Norwegian patents made me a bit confused, so I
+asked for more information:</p>