Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Broadcast 2000 Removed From Public Access

Posted by timothy on from the luckily-it's-gpl dept.

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.

5 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. can someone please explain to me by S.+Allen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:can someone please explain to me by Sir_Real · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uhmmm.... Because Microsoft can afford to buy Congress....

  2. Isn't it GPL'ed? by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. As I understand it... by ObligatoryUserName · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They're saying that because buckets of cash are spent on digital video projects, and some of those projects may fail, they're worried that the GPL won't protect them from being sued by people who claim their product is responsible for that failure. If a video project comes in late/and or over budget that uses Broadcast 2000, they're worried that they'll get sued for the damages.

    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!

  4. The problem with punting by einTier · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Is that it does nothing about the DMCA, the RIAA, the MPAA, the SSCAA, or the corrupt politicians or the corrupt corporations.


    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.

    --
    -------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.