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."

Comments

My favorite quote:

[reaper20]

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.

Re:My favorite quote:

[nyet]

Ever wonder WHY MP3s are popular? Ever wonder WHY DivX is popular? Like it or not, the masses have discovered that bits are BITS, and any number of legal wrangling and preaching over the evils of "piracy" aren't going to change that. The public has spoken, and you are clearly not listening. The RIAA and MPAA would like you to think that MP3 and DivX technology are inherently evil by pointing to the number of "illegal" uses they are involved in. But by denying that MP3 and DIVX have utility and by painting the masses who use them (yes, even illegally) as ignorant and immoral for not being good corporate lackeys is just making you look even more elitest than the worst GNU/Linux/*nix/engineer/hacker.


So, your comment appears to be nothing more than standard anti-MS zealotry. I agree, sickening.

You are conveniently forgetting the fact that it is MS's WET DREAM to completely own the codec space. Why WOULDN'T MS want to be the single source for codecs?

step 1: they could easily lock out other OS's from having functional media players

step 2: they could rigidly enforce their own defacto SSSCA

step 3: they could make sure the only online (and offline for that matter) multimedia content is MS/TimeWarner/AOL/MSNBC approved.

I assume you think this is a good thing. How sad.

If not, I am going to guess you are another pathitic MS astroturfer.

Irony?

[[amorphis]]

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

Wrong target... *sigh*

[sporty]

So while RealNetworks, MS and Quicktime aren't being yelled at for having similar products, a company who's completely open is being targeted? Isn't this hypocritical?

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 ;) use from the MPAA? Nothing.

DMCA violations

[krek]

If Microsoft analyses the DivX product looking for IP violations... would they not have violated the DMCA?

Anti SSSCA Petition

[idonotexist]

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.

Re:Anti SSSCA Petition

[bwt]

Is this real? Two senators introduce something, is that really sufficient to call it a threat?

Yes it is a nuclear bomb that has already been launched!! Do you think it is an accident that two Senators introduced this? One of them is the chairman of the commerce committee, for Christ's sake. Good God, man, are you really in denial this bad? Wake UP!!!

Right now the score is 0-2 in the Senate. Game is 51 (including the VP).

We have to act NOW to defeat this piece of fascism.

You need to write and call your representative and senators NOW. If you haven't done this in the next 48 hours, then you are a chump who deserves to have your computer given to the MPAA. The big media are preparing a heavy lobbying campaign to get this passed.

Talking points:
1) The bill is fascist. Keep the government's hands off my computer.
2) A mandatory security standard will direct all security applications to a single point of failure
3) Consumers hate "Digital Rights Management" and won't buy it. PC sales will stagnate even more.
4) Trusted client is provably crackable. If you try to shove this down consumer's throats, I guaranty it will be cracked quickly.
5) The "Copyright Industry" is harming America, because they are clinging to business models that require a police state to work.
6) Copyright is teetering dangerously close to illigitimacy because the government isn't listening to the people.
7) Reject Copyright Fascism.

Bullshit

[Robber Baron]

"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!

Re:The SSSCA is going to be passed - NOT.

[Svartalf]

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.

Re:DivX is not legit

[technos]

It uses patented technology
Prove it. It may be based loosly on the MPEG-4 standard, but it is decidedly not MPEG-4.

which needs per-copy license fees which haven't been paid by anyone
Hunh? No patent, no fees. If they were walking on someone else, you better bet they'd have been sued by now.

got with replacing all of Microsoft
They never had Microsoft's code. It was a binary hack that killed some quality issues. Also, that was another version.

and MoMuSys's code
Which was a sample implementation, free for all to look at and play with. Just like the sample code that started LAME.

Methinks you should start paying attention, mukund.

Re:The SSSCA is going to be passed - NOT.

[Planesdragon]

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.