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.
I believe it's DivX ;-)
Perhaps sniffing around for profitable oppourtunities with the MPAA et all has worn that nose clean off?
air and light and time and space
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
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
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
...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.
"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.
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
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
Ironically, DivXNetworks' success could ultimately hinge on its ability to shut down the community that it helped foster.
Two words: good luck
sulli
RTFJ.
Whoever thought it was a good idea to name a piece of software with a smiley should be strapped to a chair and forced to watch sitcoms for the rest of their life.
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.
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.
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
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!
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
I use the smiley on infrequent occasion in posts to Slashdot when I can forsee the possiblilty of what I say being taken the wrong way, partly to avoid giving offence to someone who doesn't happen to be reading in the same tone of voice as that in which I am writing, and partly to forstall replies from enraged jerks and idiots.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I agree, that is kinda stupid.
I'd be willing to rip apart most of my paperbacks to scan them, there are few that are important enough as collectibles, or for sentimental reasons, for me to worry about.
I'd keep the covers, perhaps using them for a mural.
But yeah, anyways, the arbitrary laws are stupid. If it is legal for me to posess a certain bit stream, then it should be legal no matter how I obtained it.
Did you see the reply to my post that said "newsgroups"? I'm sure the poster simply meant that this ethical discourse continues in more detail on the newsgroups. Too bad he didn't specify which ones...
The solution to that is straightforward: before writing -- learn how.
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
People silent-speaking:
DivX is bad freedom.