Slashdot Mirror
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.
Where is the liability in writing free software that just happens to do what the ultra expensive video equipment and services does?
Competition and underdogs come from tyrannical control of a market. What are the cost breaks across this market, and where do the huge expenses add up from?
- billn
So basically, are they saying that they are not releasing their free software anymore, due to the fact that it appears to do similar things as Adobe Premiere? For that reason, they are afraid they will be sued out of existence by...say...Adobe (who might just hope that a nice large settlement could help their stock price in this market)?
Or am I totally reading this wrong? If that's the case it really sucks....unless they copied some of Adobe's functions. If it's just a "similar look and feel and does the same type of stuff" issue, didn't we settle that 10 years ago with Apple Vs. Microsoft?
Does anyone have, or know of a mirror to d/l this?
------
Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
how is is that Microsoft's shrinkwrap waivers of ANY liability hold water compared to equally strong-worded waivers for open source software? why isn't Microsoft getting dragged into this compensation frenzy when their products, arguably, lose/damage more data than any other single entity (outside of the government).
This is one of the least understandable stories I have seen on here. I guess it is up to us to speculate what the hell that article means. There is definitely something we aren't being told here. To say they are remvoving the software because it is an expensive industry to be in (for their customers) does not make a lot of sense.
As near as I can tell it boils down to this: They fear being sued by a customer that lost a lot of money because of their software. Sounds like a smoke screen to me.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
Am I mistaken, or wasn't Broadcast 2000 GPL'ed? If so, why all the hubabaloo? So he doesn't want to do development anymore, I don't blame him. But anyone who is interested can always pick up where he left off.
And where's the other players in all this? Between the Video Toaster and Personal Animation Recorder this kind of stuff was done ten years ago on Amiga. Not to mention (as already was) the Mac-based Avid. another poster mentioned the similarity between B2K and an Adobe product: why would they be afraid of Adobe? If anything, Adobe is a relative newcomer to the field, not an innovator.
There's got to be better reasons.
It's similar to someone refusing to post any more legal opinions on Slashdot because they don't think IANAL will protect them if someone actually takes their legal advice, and loses money/realizes damages because of it.
This is bad news, if it's an accurate assesment because one of the key benefits of the GPL is a release from liability. If you just put something in the public domain then someone can still sue you if using it damages them, but if they use it under the terms of the GPL there's no explicit or implied warranty. So, let's just hope these guys are wrong!
This is a issue that effects all software, whether Free or not. If lawyers are able to get around the software licensing's restrictions of liability and software that is produced by someone does not perform as expected, and perhaps causes damages either by not performing as expected or by harming hardware, then the programmer could be held liable for damages that, in at lesat some cases, could go into the millions of dollars.
Just imagine what would happen if a class action was taken by IIS users against MS for the CodeRed exploit. We might laugh for a while and figure they had it coming to them, but then there are other issues... like the remote exploit in fetchmail, wsftpd, and others. They too could be faced with users who have experienced real costs associated with bugs in their code. If producers are to be held liable for these exploits despite the limits of liability worlding in their licenses it will have a devestating effect on the production of code and will seriously hamper the release early, release often mantra of Free software.
In the case of Broadcast 2000 they may be over reacting or they may just be among the first to react to the potential liability. Time will tell.
It's beyond me how essentially what is the exercise of free speech can incur a liability of warranty, especially with explicit notices disclaiming all liability for any and all damage and/or loss incurred through the use of the software.
Of course, getting in trouble with commercial organizations because you are encroaching on their "intellectual property rights" seems to be a near daily event these days, but warranty liabilities?
Will scientists be sued next for disclosing scientific principles, algorithms and processes for breach of warranty if some experiment backfires? I must conclude that the precident of suing people for releasing their source code into the public domain could have a chilling effect on the open source community, perhaps starting with HeroineWarrior.com.
Closing down B2000 represents a significant blow to the Linux-based Video Editing segment. As I recall, commercial organizations were bundling B2000 in a turnkey video editing hardware solution. I guess they'll be looking for alternatives, none of which are as mature or advanced as B2000.
IANAL, but IMHO free (speech) software should be handled rather like free advice. Take it for what it's worth.
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
We need to fight this battle, here and now, and hopefully, this copyright issue thing is just a pendulum, and it will slowly start to swing the other way. My opinion is that it has to. The media companies have pushed copyright about as far as it can go. I think the way the current legal climate is now, the VCR and the photocopier would never have been produced at all.
What we need is to quit passing laws that protect a business model. There is no inherent right to profit.
-------------------------------------------------
Isn't that the same thing that happened to Axagon Composer?? it was written by a couple of students but was seriously capable of going up against Adobe After Effects. They then decided to stop giving it away free, and start selling.. basically they were sellouts. Is B2K a sellout too? its GPL'ed though... so the source is still good, so who cares if they've stopped developing - just carry on developing a new fork.
If on the other hand, they've been warned to stop Mafia style. The people doing the warning are basically saying "we don't mind you producing software that competes with ours or is even better, as long as you flog it for a sh*t load of cash so we can flog ours for a sh*t load of cash too. But, if you have the f*cking nerve to write great software and actually dare to give it away free, your gonna put us out of business 'cos we're flogging it for squid, and your not and we're crap etc.. etc.. so either charge money for your software like a Ferengi (spelling?) or drop it, else big dave here's gonna do you in. CAPISH?!!
If the above is the case, then there is something pretty wrong. That, the DMCA, and the SSSCA proves with out a doubt that all the politicians in your government are actually the owners/major-shareholders of all your biggest corporations. So, as big dave would say: your all well and truly ****ed.
-tfga
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
We've already seen several organizations win lawsuits against GPL/warranty free
software writers because of damage that software caused to the organization. Several
involved the RIAA vs mp3/p2p software writers. Several involved the MPAA vs media
player authors. You might say that warranty exemption has become quite
meaningless in today's economy.
The first and third sentences appear to deal with liability to someone who used the software and lost time/money/product because of it. But the soecnd sentence sounds much more like copyright/DMCA issues, with RIAA vs. p2p sounding suspiciously like the Naptster suit. What is the deal here anyhow? If it's IP issues, warranty exemption is the wrong way to go. If it's warranty issues, what in the world do MPAA/RIAA/p2p issues have to do with it? When something makes this little sense, there's something fishy going on. These folks aren't saying everything they know.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
I am fairly confused as to what is going on here..
This company that provides 'broadcast 2000' is worried that some other big company will use or purchase said software, and when a bug arrises that makes the purchasing company lose money, they dont want to be sued.
Why cant the company that provides the broadcast 2000 say that they dont have a warranty on the program, and if you use it, its used as is, any any costs that arrise from something bad that happens from using the software will have to be paid by the user of the software, not the software maker?
Its a fairly common thing to see in liscense agreements, or warranties or whatever.. Did they get sued recently or what?
"We've already seen several organizations win lawsuits against GPL/warranty free software writers because of damage that software caused to the organization."
Does anyone know what they are talking about? They mention some RIAA stuff and mp3 people, but I can't think of a case where people doing ordinary end user stuff went and sued. The RIAA is trying to keep their death grip on their industry, and ditto MPAA. Broadcast 2000 wasn't using DeCSS, to the best of my knowledge, and anyone who uses free software knows (or had better figure out) that they have no right to sue the writers! That's like bringing me your computer, me saying very clearly I'll be happy to try and fix it at no cost but I can't guarantee anything, and then you suing me because I couldn't make it work and you lost too much time while I was trying! At this rate no one will be willing to help anyone do anything ever for fear of being sued! Free software is a gift to the world. If you want to use something where you have the right to sue someone, you'd better find a commercial company and pay them some money. Insurance companies don't give out free insurance - you pay them to assume the risk that you are going to get large sums of money from them in the future. These people seem to be treating free software like free insurance. I doubt the law will accept that. If so, I wouldn't be surprised if the technical people desert this country and move somewhere where people don't try and use generosity as a way to blame people and force them to pay for their generosity with cash. Talk about screwed up...
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Their references to other companies being sued by the MPAA/RIAA/Other Monopolies indicates they are worried about being sued by somebody that feels their software is somehow being used as a circumvention device. i.e. You might use it to fix video that had deliberately been broken by, say for example, a DVD player that detected you were piping its output to a VCR or other device.
Basically, they're saying they don't have the money to fight big corporations who to all apparent purposes are ready to resort to any and all legal witch hunts to keep media content production expensive and in their control.
In corporate law, the one with the money wins. We are fast approaching a era where innovation becomes is cripled into stagnation because of all the intellectual property claims the 'idea brokers' will have against every new idea. Since our progression as a species is predicated on the formulation of newer/better ideas based on previous ones, it stands to reason that we will progress faster the more those previous ideas are freely available. When the use of previous ideas , even the most mundane ones, begins to require huge expendures in legal fees and licensing, innovation cannot but ramp down to a slower pace as the freedom to innovate becomes solely the realm of entities with deep pockets... it is a question whether it might bring about total stagnation.
It is also a viscious circle. As innovation becomes more and more expensive, companies will argue their right to hold onto their discoveries for longer and longer. This will further increase the cost of any future discoveries to the point where perhaps one day newer discoveries in some areas will become impossible because of the expense incurred in licensing the previous ones.
The founders thought of tomorrow... apparently few people in congress do now. I would argue that the right of a society to progress and evolve belongs in the Charter of Rights/Constitution of every country in the world as an expression that knowledge is a thing that can never be possessed, only used. Such a statement does not discriminate against worthy research receiving privileges with respect to exploiting an idea for a period of time.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.