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
...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.
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.
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
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
*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
"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!
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
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.
"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."
Strange...... It`s looks exactly the same tactical approach as Microsoft have been using for more than 10 year: Try to copy Apple technology and re-branding it as it`s own. And now, someone have done someting the same way as Microsoft is used to do to everyone and they don`t like ité That means they belive they are the only one allowed to do this. CRAP!
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
Ironically, DivXNetworks' success could ultimately hinge on its ability to shut down the community that it helped foster.
Two words: good luck
sulli
RTFJ.
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.
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
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.
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.