Slashdot Mirror
DivX;) Goes Legit
ZooB writes: "There is an article running on CNET right now about DivX and how,(and I'm sure this comes as no surprise to anyone reading this here), such a technology used so frequently for piracy can be used in a legitimate manner. The article is interesting enough, but take careful note of the comment by an MPAA representative. "We are aware of DivX and similar technologies, but it's not the technology that's the issue, it's how it is applied," said a spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, who declined to comment specifically on DivXNetworks. "Our concern is with technology that is marketed, promoted and used as a tool for piracy." His first sentence seems to fly in the face of the DMCA as the law is currently written and then, perhaps realizing what he has just said, the spokesman back pedals and contradicts his previous statement! It is nice to know that someone besides a politician can speak out of both sides of their mouth."
DivX is great, but the compression in software speed is incredibly slow.
Now that it is 'legit' I'm sure it'll withstand all the lawyers the RIAA will send at it, including the incorporation of a watermark, copyright tags, limited distribution counter...
It should be interesting to watch the development as it progresses- it truly is an outstanding codec... but with all the lawyers watching for a slipup, it might just not make it.
We should just ban everything that might possibly in some inconciveable way be used for anything even remotely illegal.
Naturlly the content provider's should be the ones to tell us what those things might be.
guvf vf zl fvt
Fire in the hole!
I believe it's DivX ;-)
----------
Check out my blackbox styles
...if they can get rid of the pirate hacker stigma, kind of like what MP3 has to overcome. I think that a big step would be to change the name. When I hear DivX, I think of two things, actually. A pirate video format, and a failed marketing experiment by the fine folks at Circus City.
Goes legit? Interesting way of saying we would like to make money on this now.
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
Not anymore. DivX 4 is completely rewritten, none of it is microsoft code.
Observes Microsoft's Aldridge: "Trying to market yourself as the MP3 of video is not going to endear you to content owners."
In other words: Microsoft is your true solution for legitimate video and audio codecs. If you any other codec, then we'll assume you're a pirate, because why would you need another codec when you have DRM/XP/Passport enabled technologies?
Because anything not blessed off by the RIAA/MPAA is automatically copyright infringement. I honestly think this is what they think....
The arrogance of these people is really sickening.
What the hell are you talking about? Perhaps you should've read the article?
DivX is a compression scheme used to decrease the size of movies without much loss in quality. Something similar to MP3 but for video. Next time try to post something that has to do with the topic at hand.
You're nothing; like me.
Impossible. They're the heroes of American society, boldly struggling against the forces of evil.
Either that, or they're just a bunch of lying snakes. Your call.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
but i dont see the MPAA going for this downloadable movies idea. organizations such as the MPAA want control over everything.
btw, we had this story a _few_ hours ago...
-teknopurge
http://techienews.utropicmedia.com help us beta!!
Website Hosting
For example, consumers can now rent the 1995 film "World and Time Enough" for $4.95 directly from Strand Releasing's Web site for five days, after which the file will become inaccessible.
kind of ironic, when that's exactly what the original DIVX did
Go after the small fry, sue the hell out of him, then taken their technology. Notice how mp3 companies are now now servants of the RIAA?
Sue MS? How can they? THey provide the OS? Go after apple or realnetworks? Can't either. Big mmedia companies who use their technologies. What does DiVX
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
DivX is not legit. It uses patented technology, which needs per-copy license fees which haven't been paid by anyone. The MPEG-4 standard is full of patented methods (which is what DivX ;-) and OpenDivX is based on). Besides, DivX ;-) used copyrighted code, which further makes it illegal. I don't know how far Project Mayo got with replacing all of Microsoft and MoMuSys's code with their own. There're lots of posts on their forums with people questioning how the heck they started off with the copyrighted code.
Banu
If Microsoft analyses the DivX product looking for IP violations... would they not have violated the DMCA?
slashdot shenanigans
The Toronto Star has a beautiful artical about DCMA and Dmitry.
Artical here
Unless it incorporates a technological protection measure then it's illegal and the SSSCA and DMCA will see to that. The developers and users of this illegitimate technology should be in prison.
Considering the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA) is the next step for DMCA and, likely, endorsed by MPAA it seems the /. community should do what it can to stop SSSCA in its tracks now.
.
From Wired magazine: "The SSSCA and existing law work hand in hand to steer the market toward using only computer systems where copy protection is enabled. First, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act created the legal framework that punished people who bypassed copy protection -- and now, the SSSCA is intended to compel Americans to buy only systems with copy protection on by default."
If you have a minute and oppose SSSCA, please sign the petition opposing this drafted legislation at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/SSSCA/petition.html
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Try http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-202-7093278.html for a fast-loading, flash-free version of the article.
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
"The DivX technology lineage is based on using Microsoft technology and re-branding it as its own," said Michael Aldridge, Microsoft's product manager for the Windows Digital Media Division.
Translation: All of your codec are belong to us.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
*gets out the equine cadaver bat*
It absolutely amazes me that we keep going back to blaming a format for piracy problems. It's simply foolish, really. By the laws of Internet probability, someone will come up with a compression scheme to transmit data. That scheme will naturally contain little if any copy protection scheme, because why copy protect something you want to disseminate?
The only way to truly win that war is to create a format that works better and includes a level of copy protection that is both secure and doesn't impeded normal operation. Unfortunately, this seems to be a holy grail that companies aren't able to reach yet. Encrypted CDs aren't the answer, because they don't work on PCs or some players. Neither are proprietary forms of encoding, because no one wants to spend $400 on a special player to play one lousy movie or CD.
Wish there was an easy answer to this issue, but as long as there is data, there'll always be a way to compress and send it.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
I thought DIVX was out of business. You can no longer find DIVX on any players out there. Cicuit City discontinued them. The company gave some rebates and then folded. As far as I know DIVX disks are now useless and will likely continue to be so since DIVX is pretty much uncrackable unlike DVD.
...It is nice to know that someone besides a politician can speak out of both sides of their mouth.
I agree, but you got the wrong orifice.
How did you figure out the URL for this? Is this just the printer-frienldy version or what. Oh by the way thanks for the link.
"We are aware of DivX and similar technologies, but it's not the technology that's the issue, it's how it is applied," said a spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, who declined to comment specifically on DivXNetworks. "Our concern is with technology that is marketed, promoted and used as a tool for piracy."
Bullshit.
This is not about piracy. This is about the content providers using "piracy" as a means to justify threatening and bullying an uninformed public into letting them help themselves to a bigger slice of the pie. They want a system where you pay to see the movie in the theater, you pay to aquire the DVD, you pay if you move to another region because you need to purchase another player to watch movies for sale in that region, you pay for the privledge of watching it on your PC. You pay...and pay...and pay... Hell, they'd probably like us to pay royalties on the memories we have in our heads!
You're using her as bait, Master!
that acronym is way too unwieldy. Let's call it the S3CA. That way, it's still a four-letter word like "DMCA" and "fork"
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
Can anyone give me any reason-- any at all-- NOT to violently hope that at some point this messy travesty that is DivX dies very very quickly and is immediately replaced by MPEG-4?
Anyone?
You've got an unauthorized copy of that last movie that you're carrying around with you all the time.
Let me get the ECT rig out and we'll fix that little bit of "piracy" right away- won't hurt...much...and you'll not forget too much of the other stuff.
Strictly speaking, if I give you a copy of "intellectual" property, the potential for profit might have been taken from the owner, but unlike physical property, I've really taken nothing from the owner. The owner can sell the "property" to the next person. Try that with something like fresh fruit. NO, "intellectual" property is nothing more than a legal fiction, like several others, that appear to have at least partially outlived their usefulness as they're not being used in the manners that they were intended.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
> It is nice to know that someone besides a
> politician
And a Slashdot poster? "We don't want to hurt artists, just record companies! Napster promotes artists! Oh, wait, the artists are actually upset about their music getting downloaded free of charge? Well, then, it's about...it's about...us downloading Eminem and Brittney for free. Sorry...oh yeah, porn and movies too, please."
Read the post again. This was his analysis of the situation. As cynical as it is, I think he's probably not far off the track.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
It started out as a hacked up version of the Microsoft MPEG-4 codec coupled to the MS media formats.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I'm sure you meant to say: "I've never seen big breasts not to mention artifical ones".
I can't believe that DIVX is still around. I thought we had stopped it years ago. Divx is just another way for Big Business to take more rights away from the consumer. They try and pass it off as an alternative to "renting" movies, but in reality it's just another way to steal our money using underhanded Pay Per Use tricks that most of us Slashdoters have spent the last few years fighting against.
We need to take action immediately and warn our friends and family before this technology catches on and becomes a mainstay in the average consumer household. Write a letter to your representative or elected official and let them know how you feel. We simply CANNOT allow any more of our rights to be taken away.
We need a nerdfarm in our capital buildings to act as lobbyists. Anyone wanna drop out of college and visit the capitol?
We've got to stop the MPAA/DMCA/RIAA from banding together. Maybe we should ask Mr. Heston to join us--that way these corporate thugs would be scared of us.
...I mean, No one's more powerful than Moses-- haha!
Go see ramdac
Without a force to counter the natural greed of big business they will milk anything, and everything, to the last drop. Control the actors and directors, control the content, control the distribution, control the branding. Maximise the return on investiment, minimise the risk. Piracy provides a countering force, and DivX;) is the latest tool to effect that force.
Once government might have fulfiled that limitation role, might have kept big business in check, but no longer. Do you think they pay attention to what the public say? Providing they won't talk with their feet (and they won't), then the movie companies know they can ignore the protests - just mouth reassurances.
Now when the movie studios want to increase prices, there is a counter. When they want to limit distribution to the timing they like, there is a counter. When they want to only distribute their choices, there is a counter.
Piracy is the only effective weapon to really be noticed by big business. Say thank you.
In the same sense of "criminals" such as...
John Hancock
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
Geo. Walton
Wm. Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
Edward Rutledge
Thos. Heyward, Junr.
Thomas Lynch, Junr.
Arthur Middleton
Samuel Chase
Wm. Paca
Thos. Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Th. Jefferson
Benja. Harrison
Thos. Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Robt. Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benja. Franklin
John Morton
Geo. Clymer
Jas. Smith
Geo. Taylor
James Wilson
Geo. Ross
Caesar Rodney
Geo. Read
Tho. Mckean
Wm. Floyd
Phil. Livingston
Frans. Lewis
Lewis Morris
Richd. Stockton
Jno. Witherspoon
Fras. Hopkinson
John Hart
Abra. Clark
Josiah Bartlett
Wm. Whipple
Saml. Adams
John Adams
Robt. Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Step. Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
Wm. Williams
Oliver Wolcott
Matthew Thornton
Those with a keen sense of history will note that these names are the ones that match the signatures on the Declaration of Independance.
That's right. They were "criminals" by the very act that declared our sovereignty from England.
Sometimes laws and rule are dead wrong on so many counts that it is the people's responsibility to remind those that govern that they are as such.
Just because it's a "law" doesn't make it right or that it should even be allowed.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
How practical/impractical/cost effective would this be? To build a standalone component to your Entertainment system that can read the directory structure on a cd and give you a menu of files to play on your TV? Not unlike the way the AIWA mp3 decks work..
Is there a lot of processing involved in decoding this? Any possibilities/advantages to coding this onto specialized chips?
Ironically, DivXNetworks' success could ultimately hinge on its ability to shut down the community that it helped foster.
Two words: good luck
sulli
RTFJ.
The 2nd amendment can only be described as criminal. Common people have no right to own guns. Only the government has the right. Anything else is criminal.
Yeah, they were criminals and they abbreviated their names in really lame ways.
DivX as it stands has poor playback on Macs and at best decent playback on x86 Linux (people using Suns or LinuxPPC machines still have to wait). But there is a much better option, it's called VP3.2 and it was released last Friday (Sep 7) under a modified Mozilla Public License 1.1. Yes folks you read correctly, there is a decent video compression codec that is open source. Quicktime 5, Real Player and Windows Media Player can already read the movie files with the codec installed, and a Linux port is on the way. This codec beats the snot out of DivX in the streaming arena. Playback quality is good, and will get better with more work. Get it at:
http://www.vp3.com
You know it occurs to me that piracy in all it's forms has depended HEAVILY on compression. If software was distributed in an uncompressed form and compression was declared illegal then the entire piracy problem would cease to exist!
:)
(obligitory sarcasm disclaimer here for the sarcasm impaired)
The same kinds of relationships between illegal activities and VERY USEFULL tools or commodities can be found all throughout every day life. It's pretty hard to smoke pot without oxygen or commit a drive-by without cars yet still oxygen and cars are freely available. Perhaps we shouldn't tell congress.
-Zane
This sig is worse than my last.
>>This was his analysis of the situation.
no - read it again. There is no 'my analysis of this'.
He states his FUD and paranoia as facts. Plain and simple.
At least the part of the MPAA that lobbied for DMCA and is currently lobbying for SSSCA. So the two-sides-of-the-mouth-talking doesn't surprise me one bit.
This reminds me of a sig I have frequently seen on /.:
Intellectual property is to property what fools gold is to gold
Enigma
That's right. They were "criminals" by the very act that declared our sovereignty from England.
They knew it, too. Every man who signed that paper, every member the governments who sent them there, and every last soldier and camp follower of the armies that fought for them, were ALL guily of treason to the English Crown.
If they had failed, they would have died for it--which means that what they fought to achieve was worth dying for.
Sometimes laws and rule are dead wrong on so many counts that it is the people's responsibility to remind those that govern that they are as such.
Correct. It is your right and duty to petiton the government for a redress of your greviances, and your option to break through civil disobedience what laws are passed who's punnishment is so grossly overdone that your action would still the hearts of righteous men (and women.)
But don't go forgetting that Ghandi, Washington, and King were all willing, and for a great portion did, suffer the legal consequences of their moral actions.
If you break the DMCCA or this SSSCA, you should be willing to risk suffering the consequences of breaking the laws. If you aren't, then you're not someone with moral high ground--you're just a punk who wants stuff for free.
Just because it's a "law" doesn't make it right or that it should even be allowed.
Not a laws are ethically or religiously correct. A lot of them aren't, even if most of them are. This is done to accomidate the various ethics and religons that rise and fall apart from a government; it's the flip side of the seperation of church and state.
As for "being allowed." We the people elected the lawmakers--every last person with a legal choice for go/no go for any law ever passed--and letting them make laws that conform or contradict our ethics is simply letting them do their jobs.
We should make it clear that we do not think they are doing their jobs correctly when they do things like this--but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't let them do their jobs.
to legit to legit to quit break it down
The new 'Intellectual Property' laws (the DMCA etc) are designed to protect the 'right' of digital content distributors to be paid for the content they distribute, even though the internet means that cost of copying and distribution is now practically zero. All fairly contrived abstract concepts - it doesn't have to be this way. But if it does, I think we as world citizens should group together and stand up for our own rights, and create our own abstract ownership concepts.
I'm sure that most people would agree that one of the most precious commodities is time, it is the only truly limited resource for any individual. All abstract concepts need an appropriate name, so lets call this our Temporal Assests. It must surely be a fundamental right of all world citizens to prevent abuse of their Temporal Assets and its theft by big corporations.
Now, every time an advert comes on the TV, phone up the company concerned and shout down the phone "You're abusing my Temporal Assets" and slam the phone down.
Are you sure you meant *mouth*? Are you sure that is what he was talking out of?
I think you got your bodily orifices mixed up.
jik-
What garbage. This flack's statement is entirely consistent. The first part of the statement asserts that technology per se is not the issue (this says nothing to contradict the DMCA, which addresses a technology only inasmuch as it is designed to circumvent proprietary format protections. Just being a format that copyright piracy could occur in is not a DMCA violation).
The second part of the statement describes what, rather than a particular technology in and of itself, is the issue: how that technology is applied. Specifically, that it is "marketed, promoted and used as a tool for piracy."
The point being, Napster nakedly presented itself for use in distributing copyrighted songs. Some little disclaimer is not sufficient to absolve you of liability. It was dead obvious to anyone visiting Napster that what was going on there was finding and downloading copies of copyrighted songs. The software itself wasn't an issue and wasn't legally attacked. The business and the website were, and were. This flack is simply saying, if someone sets up a "Vidster" site using DivX for people to trade copies of copyrighted video, they're going to be (rightly) legally attacked for copyright infringement.
Articles like this would be a more powerful vocie against the dangerous direction intellectual property rights legislation is going if they didn't present their case in a way that made them sound like clueless teenagers.
Think of the ramifications of making compression illegal! Would that include even non-data compression? Would the streetcorner player have to hang up his accordion? Would the house wife or husband (for political correctness) be forced to burn their sponges? Or maybe the real answer is to have someone police files being sent, and stretch them out... inserting extra bits everywhere... THAT would work! =D -z3r0byt3
1) i've used DiVX. i am informed in, at least, that. i wasn't very impressed.
2) i posted as AC for the sole purpose of avoiding upmods.
you haven't answered my question. I've looked at DiVX, and i can't see anything that really justifies its existence. it looks like something random and kind of dodgy that is going to grab a whole bunch of consumer momentum and get really big while MPEG-4 never catches on.
the one-sided slanted near-advertisements that make up their site are useless, esp. since i'm not personally qualified to deeply understand the technical issues behind the relative qualities of DiVX and MPEG-4. i'm trying to locate one informed individual who actually *uses* or implements these video codecs who can give me one good reason-- besides the "oh, lots of things already support it" factor-- that anyone would want to use DiVX over MPEG-4, given both are open documented standards. so far, nobody's given me any reason i should give a crap that DiVX exists, so i'm just sitting here and waiting for MPEG-4 to be adopted...
if it ever is, now.
From the original post: I honestly think this is what they think....
That's what HE THINKS they believe. And it sounds reasonable to me too. Look how good MP3 has been for digital audio. With the open standard, companies can and have advanced the technology by building better MP3 playing software, ripping software, portable devices with more space, smaller sizes, removable media, etc.
Now Aldridge comes along and tries to convince us that a closed standard is the best way to do it.
Right.
From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc
You really are a dumb fuck aren't you :)
;)" is the name of the codec, including
"DivX
the *wink*. It has nothing at all to do with the
Circuit City pay-per-view DVD format, except to
maybe poke fun at it, and it's demise
Perception is reality. While those of us in the Free World see DIVX for what it really is -- a patent-unencumbered, open-systems codec -- we are the minority. Listen to folks in Windows circles talk about digital video. Since DIVX doesn't come from Microsoft or RealNetworks, they refer to it as a "warez codec". That's a loaded phrase, but it's bandied about quite often. It implies that its only use is for bypassing the DRM in corporate formats. That's definitely the way the intellectual property police want people to see it, too. It's up to us to educate the drooling masses.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
DivX 4 is only for Microsoft Windows and only for vfw.
Screw that!
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
the guy basicly admits that tools are not the cause of piracy, the people are. WTF, is that not the whole issue as to why we don't need the DMCA in the first place? the crooks tech is easier now, but their ability to illude the law has not gone anywhere, therefor old copyright law covers this fine enough. then to negate that statment just shows that the only thing these people care about it control and maximum profits while limiting free speech. god I wish I had a time machine so I could go back to the days of the constitution and tell them about how corruption has taken foot and copyright law is bastardised the origional intent, perhaps we would then have 12 amendments to the bill of rights as apposed to 10.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Property: You do what you want with what you own.
IP: You tell other people what they can't do with what they own.
Hrm, yup, same exact thing.
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
And most of them died in a worse off situation than what they were in before the revolution, and what they risked their lives to create has become just as corrupt and tax-gouging as the institution they were fighting against.
Now doesnt that make it all worth while.
I tried to fucking post the first fucking line of this message and I got this stupid fucking message: "Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted"
The postercomment filter rejects all messages under about 60 characters because the admins set the minimum ratio for short comments to an impossible value (i.e. greater than 1). If you explain what you're linking to, you will have a longer comment, and more users are likely to click through because they know what they're clicking. (That's the problem with "You have 1 new message" banner ads; the user quickly learns that they lead nowhere and ignores them.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
I think DivX meant is that v4 uses their own code rather than MS' code, but either way, it's just an implementation of the MPEG4 spec. Like other MPEG codecs (1,2,"3"), they define the spec, not the absolute algorithm.
DivX doesn't violate patents, because it's an implementation. And to lookback....MPEG4 is based on QuickTime, so we should all be thanking Apple for their creation, not RealNetworks or Microsoft. RealNetwork's codec started as narrow-band streaming, so as we approach broad-banc, it's codec didn't scale well. The first few attempts of Microsoft's WMA/WMV were pathetic quality, until recently. However, we want a standard that is corporate-neutral, otherwise things won't be as successful and widely accepted (mpeg1 in VCD, mpeg2 in DVD, mp3 is everything =) )
If you select codec within FlasK, you'll see "DivX" and "Microsoft MPEG4", among others.
Too bad, unlike mpeg1(*.mpg/dat), mpeg2(*.vob), mp3(*.mp3), we don't have a standard format among MPEG4....sigh...until then, we'll have to keep so many players around to play DivX,ASF,AVI,WMV....
all those greedy companies like Disney had plans for unlimited rental-based revenue. Can't you imagine you're five year old kid... "Daddy, Daddy. I want to watch Winnie the Pooh again" - for the hundreth time. Can you say, "Cha-ching"?
Wrong. All DIVX players had an option to extend a disc's rental period indefinitely (i.e. until the DIVX program ended) for US$25.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Silly question but... If you read the DivX site it's not very easy to understand.
They say that DivX is based on MPEG-4... It's easy to find MPEG 1 and 2 files, that stand on their own. Why don't you see MPEG-4 used the same way? Is there no approved file format?
I guess I just wonder what DivX has added or changed from MPEG-4 that makes it worthwhile. Since they started with MPEG-4, wasn't 90% of the work done already? Or even 100%?
It is nice to know that someone besides a politician can speak out of both sides of their mouth.
Alas, it seems to be a trick that certain Canadian politicians have yet to master.
(Sorry, Jean.)
So, by definition, how would it replace what's already out there in the form of stream formats.
Oh, by the way, DivX is no longer a hacked up implementation of Microsoft's codec- it's its OWN codec derived from the reference implementation from the MPEG comitee.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Look at his statement from a programming standpoint
struct ATechnology
{
String technologyName;
boolean marketingForPiracy;
boolean promotedForPiracy;
boolean usedForPiracy;
}
public boolean IsBad(aTechnology inAT)
{
return(inAT.marketingFormPiracy & inAT.promotedForPiracy & inAT.usedForPiracy);
}
/*
if you can apply that formula to whatever technology you want. and find out if this guy doesn't like it.
*/
And also dont forget that Jesus was a criminal by Roman law.
The original story should have said that there are two technologies called DIVX. The first is dead. The people who made the video compression software decided to re-use the name, thereby causing continual confusion.
It is difficult to find a group of people less skilfull in marketing than programmers, I think.
Bush's education improvements were
...and nobody's mentioned (admittedly still in 'planning' stage) Ogg Tarkin yet? Shocking...
'Course, there doesn't seem to be any actual code yet, while the developers seem to have been busy with Vorbis instead, but it looks like there are interested people working on it, anyway.
I noticed their mailing list archives show some discussion of whether the vp3 codec mentioned in one or two other posts might make an interim codec to use for an Ogg video file format while Tarkin is under development...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
So...it's OK for you guys to steal technology from others and claim it as your own, but it's not OK for other people to do the same thing to you? Boy, you guys can dish it out, but you sure can't take it, can you? Can't stand the thought of somebody else using your strategy so much that you go hiding under the coattails of your attorneys? Why don't you go try something original for once instead of buying out your competition so you can dominate the world?
These guys make me sick.Being a smartass is a much better thing than being the alternative.
and the wrong finger for your digital rights...
Correct me if I'm wrong but the original use of DIvX was legit. Circuit City and the DivX consortium of electronics vendors used it to encrypt movies on DVD with the idea being that for every view, the viewer had to pay up to unlock the disc. When the idea went bust, the compression algo got out into the public domain. At least I seem to remember this being the story
The cover has fallen off half my Heinlein paperbacks, a couple of my books are at the "stack of unbound pages" state, and replacement cost for my library (assuming I could find everything at used bookstores) would be thousands of dollars.
.txt file from someone else's similar labor. Screw legality, it's still moral to me, as long as I'm only downloading copies of books I already own. So where's the cache of underground science fiction books that has Ellison going psycho?
It's still legal for me to buy a scanner and spend thousands of hours (hundreds of thousands if I'm unwilling to destroy the books in the process) scanning and OCRing everything I own. But I gather it's not legal for me to obtain the same result as a copy of the
I've been following 3ivX, which its creators say is more compact, stable, multiplatform and legal (created from scratch, compared to DivX which was ripped off from Microsoft) than DivX;). But it's less popular. How come? If 3ivX is so much better, people should use it the most. I've heard that it will become a standard part of Quicktime soon.
But as for the technical side, how does it actually compare? I haven't done tests.
But don't go forgetting that Ghandi, Washington, and King were all willing, and for a great portion did, suffer the legal consequences of their moral actions.
I don't know where you read about the history of the "Revolutionary Sit-In", but in my history books George Washington led a whole lot of men with guns attempting to kill anyone who tried to enforce those legal consequences.
Just a little perspective, before you get too harsh on those people who are still merely trying to avoid getting caught breaking unconstitutional laws.
nice one mate
I can't believe I'm responding to a post by Jamie TheWhingeSki.
However, it's useful to note that cultural differences and the lack of modulation in text mean that often one must use creative punctuation to convey the intent of humour.
The various types of humour include:
Of these, the kinds generally understood by the People of the United States of America are... anything accompanied by a laugh track.
I don't have time to dig up the link, but check out MPlayer. It comes with extensive documentation and pointers to libraries, including an open-source DiVX;-) library in the works -- so that you no longer need the Windows DLL, for example. I've tested it, it works very well.
OTOH, that there is a totally open-source codec is *VERY* good news. Hopefully it'll end up being like Ogg, an excellent alternative because of its better overall quality? We can always dream anyway.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
I subject says it all. http://www.3ivx.com
IP is the problem. It exists, and it must be dealt with. DivX is not the solution; it is too narrow in scope, and too extreme in its limits,
While the various IP merchants are pushing for a "pay-per-view/rental" scenario, this doesn't match current standards of IP control at all.
It's outrageous to expect the population to accept an outright ban on "non digital rights certified devices"(posted on slashdot recently) -- as outrageous as a population expecting to be able to use BearShare to aquire copyrighted materials for free.
The industry is pushing for a world where all transferred objects are guaranteed legit, and unreplicatable. The hardcore few claim there has been a technology shift, and all information must be free.
Both sides are wrong, and any company that thinks MS is going to be their savior is a fool. Microsoft will toss out the IP middlemen as sure as they have destroyed netscape and countless other quality companies -- the IP merchants are just next in line.
It's been said by reasonable people on slashdot over and over again : Just make it hard enough, and the penalties distasteful enough, and people won't steal. Our whole society works on this premise...and it is effective. Sure, I could steal at the market, but the potential downside far outweighs the benefits. Sure, the NSA could mount a camera (a small one) on my dick to make sure I'm not a child molester, but that's going a little overboard with regards to a presumption of innocence and my personal privacy.
What can I do with a CD? I can loan it out, I can make copies for myself, I can play it (potentially) an infinite number of times, I can sell it, I can give it away to a friend, family or library. Similar situations exist with other IP -- dvds, books, etc.
What can't I do? Replicate and distribute the IP for free or profit. I can only transfer the copy I own, a single copy.
So there needs to be an infrastructure that makes it impossible for the current object holder to use an IP object unless they hold the rights -- via direct or indirect sale, loan, gift, etc. Perhaps some type of key system gets examined and allows decryption of the IP, with severe penalties for "crackers" who post IP protection bypass software.
This is not rocket science; banks allow activities over the web and we are comfortable with that, The IRS and Social Security keep regularly updated records on individuals and their status.
The IP situation can be dealt with without either side freaking out -- this should not be treated as a big "Win-Lose" situation where the public, Microsoft or the IP merchants and up in a "winner take all" scenario. Extreme outcomes are unneccesary.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
When I first saw the article, I thought the discussion would include the (lack of) "openness" of the codec.
I think it did not make many noise, but they have closed the codec, and halted the open version. Proof?
their post on their forum!
Well, let's realize this. The used idealist open source hackers to make their closed source codec and also money. Their license was less acceptable even than the darwin license!
What did they do? They make a "reference" implementation open. It contained all the features needed for MPEG4 except any optimizations. But then they did learn how to make a codec, they made another indoor version (which we do not know to contain code from open version). And they made it "faster" and "more reliable".
HUH? To post here, I have to preference EVERYTHING i say with an 'IMHO'?
Did you just arrive here from AOL or are you just irretrievably stupid?
The author expressed his OPINION. I read it, and understood immediately that this was an OPINION.
He may be right; he may be wrong. Either way, he is allowed to express his opinion. You, as the reader, are supposed to understand that when somebody says something, it is an OPINION.
In fact, the OPINION he presented was a completely valid interpretation of the MS lackey's asinine comment, and I suspect you know this, hence your idiotic "FUD FUD FUD" bleatings.
Because anything not blessed off by the RIAA/MPAA is automatically copyright infringement. I honestly think this is what they think....
Bold/italic mine.
Try brushing up on your reading comprehension, and maybe take your ritalin before posting.
jitenpai, it was a big mistake. I have experience with marketing, and I often marvel at how badly programming projects are marketed. Programmers are usually not skilled communicators, and this often costs them enormously. In the present instance, a considerable amount of work is necessary to tell people that the new business is not the old one that they hated.
It is foolish to make a joke that only a few people will understand, and that will confuse most people.
Bush's education improvements were
...was a mad man trying to screw the jews and kill rome
"We are aware of DivX and similar technologies, but it's not the technology that's the issue, it's how it is applied," Yet, every redneck with a pick-up and a 12 pack also has a shotgun.
Does this mean that every time I quote a line from my favourite DVD i'm treading on someone's intellectual property rights?
Does this make my mouth a copyright circumvention device?
Well, when it was an illegal 'underground' hack the name was acceptable. You're right that Project Mayo stealing the name for an above-board "legit" project was pretty stupid. Not only because there's confusion with the weakly marketed commercial disc format, but mainly because there's enormous confusion with the far more popular illegitimate (and incompatible) format.
So, what can be done about this? It isn't just the DivX project. Many open source projects pick a foolish name. Most projects have home pages that are incomprehensible unless you are one of the project members.
Marketing is just the planning of communication. Every project needs to communicate. There is a need for a marketing sub-project in every project.
Bush's education improvements were
Should be easy to understand.
That would also mean you all are reasonnably adult and don't go for contradictions every 5 words.
Ahh, Americans ! 8)
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
I didn't understand what you said when I first read it. The name is not DivX, it is DivX wink.
Bush's education improvements were
it's not the technology that's the issue, it's how it is applied.
Where did this quote come from? We desperately need to keep it on file and to be able to quote them.
If this is true then the MPAA are not concerned with circumvention devices, but what SOME people may use them for.
The months are just too short. I can count the number of days on one hand.
People silent-speaking:
DivX is bad freedom.
Tarkin is as important as Vorbis.
The truth of what you say is strong. But they were revolting against a king... y'know, monarch. BIG GUY THAT TAXED THEM UP THE YINGER. Could quarter soldiers in their homes. Impress people into the Royal Navy. Burn their houses and take their land. It was a different time.
Keep in mind that most colonials were escaping the kind of religious staunchness that MR. BIG GUY enforced. They (the Crown) were all too happy to kick the crap out of those that they really never liked. And tax them to death.
The comparisons are not even close to what people are using on this newsgroup.
I got a stupid question about DivX ;-). Which is, exactly, what's the point of it?
;-) is a hell of a lot slower than the Sorenson codec used in Quicktime, for no better quality and less functionality (I'm thinking about subtitles here). My laptop's a 266MHz Pentium, which is good for everything I want to do (coding, surfing, mailing) including watching Quicktime videos. The same video encoded in DivX ;-) won't display -- computer too slow. Quality's the same though.
;-), as well. So don't go telling me that it's better than QT on purely philosophical grounds.
;-) is the preferred codec in the i386 world (which I'm sorry to say basically means Windows -- I reboot under w2k to watch videos since the quality is much higher). People will complain if we give them a Quicktime file, but not if we give them a DivX ;-) file. Personally, I put it down to pure anti-Apple bigotry...
;-)? Souldn't the free software / open source communities ditch the thing and actually work on a really open codec free of legal issues? If it could also perform decently (similarly to the Sorenson codec for instance) it would be a good point.
It doesn't provide such excellent quality -- some friends and I have played around a lot with videos, making films, that kind of thing. Through trial and error, we found out that DivX
There are legal issues regarding the "openness" of DivX
Yet DivX
So: what is the point of DivX
I'm sorry to say, but so long such a codec doesn't exist I'll keep a w2k partition and Quicktime around.
Just my two penny worth.
People love divx
If you charge for it , they will want QUALITY.
No one wants to pay for CRAP.
Same for Mp3.
"if it ain't broke , you're not trying..."
http://mrhide.pinnesota.org