Broadcast 2000 Removed From Public Access

VRteach writes: "I see that the developers of the fine multimedia software, Broadcast 2000, have removed their main product from public access. Their web site cites a worry of potential liability." The site says that "the distribution of Broadcast 2000 enhanced to unacceptable levels the risk of an individual experiencing significant financial damage due to the extremely expensive nature of high end video production and the high risk inherent in professional video business marketing." It also says they plan to keep issuing "minor works" for now, and as liability issues are resolved to again release major programs.

Comments

Re:Is this saying what I think it is?

[theancient1]

It sounds more like "this software could be used for a mission-critical operation, and if our software breaks, someone might sue us." They have the standard "no warranties" disclaimer, but they're saying that such a warning doesn't seem to carry much weight in today's lawyer-happy society.

Re:Mirrors?

[dane23]

It looka like Tucows still has it.

Re:Mirrors?

[Wesley Felter]

http://rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/sourceforge/heroines /bcast-2000b_va-1.i386.html

Re:Mirrors?

[ReelOddeeo]

It's not a d/l mirror, but my SuSE 7.2 Pro CD's have it. So I guess that won't go away anytime soon.

Re:Well that shot Linux credibility to hell.

[davey23sol]

Hmmm code fork?

Yeah... why not? The GPL saves the right for *anyone* to fork the code. There is always a more fearless group out there willing to take up controversial code.

So if someone still has the tarball...

It's time for Broad-Kast XP!

Re:the babelfish version...

[Thagg]

Actually, how I read this is that they were worried that somebody would try to use this software for production, and something would horribly fail, causing extreme duress. In the inevitable ensuing lawsuits, the Broadcast 2000 people would end up being sued into oblivion. It's not a nice way to go.

No amount of disclaimers and click-through agreements can keep these lawsuits from getting started, and once started they are incredible money-sinks.

Exactly this kind of thing happened to Burt Rutan, the designer of almost every interesting airplane over the last 20 years. His VariEze, and follow-on LongEZ were spectacular designs, but a few people built them poorly, died, and Burt was sued. He defended four of five of these lawsuits, and won every one, but decided that there were better ways to spend one's life, and pulled the plans off the market. In something parallel to what will happen here; there are xeroxed versions of the LongEZ plans out there if you really want them, in a samizdat kind of operation. Burt's current company, Scaled Composits continues to build exciting airplanes, but only for the corporate market.

thad

I think this is a hoax.

[mrAgreeable]

They are still distributing Cinelerra (see their sourceforge page, linked from their main site), and it seems to be very much along the same lines as Broadcast. If they were so worried, why keep distributing Cinelerra?

Here:
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id =9 4322&forum_id=42723
they mention makine Cinelerra a commercial program, but the message itself looks like it was either a joke or written by someone high at the time. Cinelerra is GPLed, by the way.

From their docs (manual.ps in the Cinerella distro):
"In mid 2000 designs for a Broadcast 2000 replacement were drafted. The Broadcast name was officially retired from the series and the software would now be called Cinelerra."

Re:I don't understand...

[TheWanderingHermit]

Yes, there is much more to video production than flashy equipment, but without the "flashy" equipment, one cannot produce video and make a living. There are the independent filmmakers, who may or may not be making a profit. Then there are the people who are making a living on video.

For such a person or company, moving from video equipment (which can be VERY expensive) to computers can save a lot of money and time (except for download/rendering/upload time). Video production time costs A LOT of money. (I'm not in a major market, yet I've been called cheap for paying videographers and editors less than $30/hour!) So suppose I'm using BC2K on my systems. It's 3 am and we've been working 24 hours straight and, due to some previously unknown bug, we do something with BC2K and lose 24 hours of work. With one editor at $25/hour, that's $600 of work.

Maybe GPL says I don't have grounds to sue, but if I can make a case and say this bug cost me 3 days work in editing, graphics work, and videography, then I might claim much more. While GPL or any other license may say I give up any claims, I can still sue. By the time it is decided I have a groundless lawsuit, the programmer and company -- who let me get the program for free -- have spent quite a chunk of change to do nothing more than get the court to rule I can't sue.

It has nothing to do with other players. To me it makes sense. Video production costs A LOT of money and most production companies will get into quite a snit if something they expect to work screws up and ruins a lot of work.

Re:As I understand it...

[LordNimon]

Anyone can sue you for anything at any time. If the lawsuite is completely absurd, then the judge will throw it out right away, but you still need to hire a lawyer and go to court. Fortunately, for cases in small-claims court (like those TV shows), you don't need a lawyer, but you still need to go to court.

Re:I am not a lawyer, but..

[wings]

From the message posted on Sourceforge Here("http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum _id=110712" for the paranoid), it appears that someone IS demanding 'compensation' for 'damages' caused by their software.

Mandrake from 8.0 has this, SF site going up

[leonbrooks]

Currently downloading bcast-200c-5mdk.src.rpm from a Mandrake Cooker mirror. I plan to put up a sourceforge site named hev-E (High End Video Editor) and get the package owned by a two dollar company that the sharks can amuse themselves with if they're that stupid. I hope that the founders of Broadcast 2000 feel safe about contributing to that from time to time.

``Would she still like me if I was one of the guys who follow the camels around to pick up after them, or a lawyer, or something?'' - King Xerxes (a zucchini) from the VeggieTales version of Esther

The Register has a story on it

[jason8008]

I met the the developer, Adam Williams. Met him at NAB last year. He's had a lot of problems developing Broadcast and this article sort of describes it:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/192 45 .html

I met the writer too. A real mean bastard who got me into a lot of trouble.

Adam is a nice guy who needs all the support he can get.

Straight from the horse's mouth...

[TeachingMachines]

The reason that the developers dropped this project may have been given by a developer from Heroine Virtual at the sourceforge forum link. The problem looks to be one of financing the project:

With this in mind you should realize what is involved in ensuring the software you use doesn't have to be paid for. The only reason you can use any software at all is because the developers are able to pay for it through day jobs which today don't exist. The GPL requires software to be paid for by the developer before it can be released to the public.

• #1 Most of the computer scientists who once contributed to open source projects moved to different careers.
  
  #2 Writing large applications is an undesirable hobby for anyone not interested or able to make a career out of software.

What a dilemma. Great goddamned software, and no way to even provide a micropayment for it??? All someone would have to do is threaten to sue these guys to break their bank. I guess I'm being offtopic but I can see why they took their toys and went home.