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.
What's the betting this is somehow DMCA related...
Could they be more cryptic? Get your Mandrake SRPM while you can, I guess.
I think he was just upset because the program works great with itself, but it almost totally incompatible with everything else on the planet.
The program was a neat concept, but I was unable to get it working once over the past few years of playing with it. I have 100% compatible hardware for capture.
Liability, why does avery lee still distribute one of the most popular video edditing programs under GLP still then? http://www.virtualdub.org/
I don't understand, and I'm personally very skeptical of this excuse to stop development and pull the program.
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.
"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"
Can someone dumb this down a little for me please.
Basically they are saying that by distributing Broadcast 2000, there was an increased amount of risk for someone to do something stupid and mess up their expensive equipment (and sue the software company for their own mistake). It's pure logic...the more people using something, the more likely someone is to do something stupid.
This is the number one rule of computing at its best: CYA, no one else will.
Celebrate Steak and a Blowjob Day!
"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."
This means: "We have fewer lawers than Avid, Adobe, and Macromedia. In the current business climate, the company with the largest number of lawers wins, no matter what the law says. We are closing the project because we would like to have enough money to eat net week."
gov't of the corp., by the corp., and for the corp.
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
Generally, the warranty provisions with which a software maker must be concerned are these three:
Generally, the 2 implied warranties can be disclaimed by reciting the magic disclaimer words. (NOTE: I AM a lawyer and this is NOT legal advice to ANYONE - thus I am not reprinting the magic words here so no one can rely on any supposed "advice" they may claim I am giving.)
What I suspect is happening here (and this is close to pure conjecture) is that the company is spooked by recent lawsuits (i.e. - Napster, DeCSS, Felton, et al.) and decided that it would take the safe route rather than be accused of providing a tool to infringe copyrights in authored works.
Of course this is my opinion alone and is based on current events in the legal world combined with the statements on the Broadcast 2000 website. I may be completely wrong about this. Only the people at Broadcast 2000 can say for sure.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
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.
In other news, the letters A, E, I, O, and U have all been removed from the alphabet due to issues surrounding their membership as a vowel, which is recognized as being literarily different from consonants. Thus, after this line we are no longer permitted to use vowels and we will replace all vowels with "*" since it apparently belongs to the public domain.
MP** AND R*** G* F*CK Y**S*LF!!
Sp*c**l n*t*: Th* l*tt*r "Y" *s n*t * v*w*l *n th*s c*s*. F*ck!
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!
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!
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
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.
-------------------------------------------------
"In related news... Gravity will be shut off as someone might drop his or her expensive professional equipment."
And it will cost them money whether they win or lose.
Anyone can sue anyone else for anything at any time. All that's needed is a lawyer who will take the case on contingency. Then it doesn't matter whether the suit has any merit at all, because the defendant will still be out the cost of a lawyer just to get the suit thrown out, and the plaintiff has zero risk in many cases. (Fortunately, some states have frivolous lawsuit laws that provide some protection from totally bogus suits)
I think I'll sue them now. I've always wanted to make an expensive video production, and they've taken away my ability to do that - along with all of the money I would have made from the project.
Of course IANAL but IAMANAL
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
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?
d =9 4322&forum_id=42723
Here:
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_i
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."
it allowed you to edit digital video. (mpegs, avi, quick time.)
and make videos, on a secure, robust enviroment such as Linux. and then you could also use the windows version.
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
Studios know this and can always demand a refund when stuff breaks.
WTF? Isn't it just a wash if you use a no-cost tool and it doesn't work?
I understand the urge to have a foot to hold to the fire, but why should they have any worry about getting their money back or not if they have "faulty" software? If someone uses an Avid for a project and they can't get their bloody feature film out the door, they have *a lot* more problems involving things like completion bonds and unpaid workers. That's a *much* bigger worry than the cost of that Avid workstation and its applications.
I severely doubt Avid would ever have to accept this type of responsibility. But again, they have the lawyers that can SHOW the claim is laughable. B2000 probably didn't.
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
I know. I know. SGI systems kick serious butt for high-end applications (I've personally run demos of an Octane2 running 2 streams of HD in real time w/ effects). But an over-muscled X86 Linux box could get performance in the same zip code for an order of magnitude less cash. Lower hardware price tag = higher margins for software developers = happy software developers.
[flamebait]
Who wants a Premiere knock-off, anyway? Wouldn't you rather see Discreet, Jaleo, or Softimage/Avid move to Linux?
[/flamebait]
I believe you don't have to accept the GPL license in order to use GPLed software. I assume that in such a case there would be no warranties of any kind except those required by law. Which, I believe, is one reason everyone was so pissed off about UCITA. IIRC, it would require all software to have a warranty, and it didn't make any exception for free software.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This was in the Heroine Virtual forum on Sourceforge and is dated 4 days ago. It certainly isn't "the reason" but it's amusing to see that it was a consideration that recently (when a fresh copy of source to Cinelerra, the successor to Broadcast, was uploaded to Sourceforge)
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
Essentially video editors are your typical clueless user that know a lot about what they do (movie making) and not a lot about technology. The idea that these people operate under is "time is money and it better work dammit because I just paid a lot of money for this tool!" They want to "get someone on the phone now!" when a tool doesn't work. I'm generalizing this user to make a point--a user that expects this kind of handholding doesn't fit well with the do-it-yourself-fix-it-yourself way of Linux.
Applications like Final Cut (Apple) and AfterEffects (Adobe) work so well that you'd have a tough time arguing that free is better (based on the time is money theory) with those tools than something free or open.
There are many, many resources for these tools--trouble shooting, advice, even users groups are active it places like LA and SF. I applaud the effort that the developers of Broadcast 2000 made and I support their decision to exit the market.
From the page describing one of their utilities, called FIREHOSE (it stripes network data accross different NICs as a means of increasing bandwidth):
The FIREHOSE package contains a simple library allowing any application wishing to stream data across striped networks to do so with just a few function calls. Also included is a file transfer utility and a pipe utility. Pipe gigabytes of uncompressed video, CD-R images, scientific data, tar archives, and porn all with the greatest of ease.
It's not smart to generalize like this. You statements are not 100% correct.
Dreamworks is a TOTALLY open source shop. They don't have "anyone to call" when something goes wrong.
They don't care.
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
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?
What is their relationship with Linux Media Labs and Linux Media Arts? Linux Media Labs offers for $599.00 Broadcast for LINUX, "a fully supported LINUX video edit[or]", which looks exactly like Broadcast 2000 to me.
Now, this could very well just be a case of a company taking GPLed software and selling support for it. It's somewhat surprising that they don't mention Heroine Virtual at all, but they're not required to do so. (Last week, a story here about Linux office suites linked to a company that was clearly just selling KOffice... they hadn't even bothered to change the names of the applications in the screenshots!) Cygnus had a profitable and very reputable business doing similar, before being consumed by RedHat.
What's the relationship between these companies?
"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.
``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
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
, from what I'd guess, about people buying some really expensive video gear and then hinging it on their software.
And, although there are no guarantees, and it's OSS, etc........ they are worried that someone will sue their ass off for bugs, or for the software not performing.
Sounds like a load of crap.
For at least a century, these same businesses or their forebears have been funding (one way or another) the development of increasingly business-centric wars. American businesses essentially funded the Bolshevik revolution, and without the prolonged and earnest intervention of some Wall Street big names like Farben, Ford and General Electric, Adolph Hitler's Third Reich wouldn't have got as far as the taxiway.
If world wars are a routine achievement, what hope do you think mere copyright has in comparison?
With a century of momentum and billions of dollars behind them, how are you or I going to stop them?
Our `inalienable rights' may as well be alien rights in the face of such blatant and powerful violations of them.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
They're the ones that OWN most, if not all the rights to Broadcast 2000. They can do whatever in the hell they want with the code- the GPL only dictates what you do if it's NOT your code and you distribute it or portions thereof.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
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:
2 45 .html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/19
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.
Somebody posted a link to an older version (2000B). I've got 2000C, the latest version, just uploaded to my GeoCities account that I haven't used in years :)
/.d or something), email me at necrotech at geocities period com and I can arrange to transfer it to you.
Go nuts! Both the source and RPM version are there (you might need to go easy, though... GeoCities has some crappy transfer limits)
If anybody wants to get a copy directly from me (if GeoCities get
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
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.
#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.
The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.
Well, software innovation may be taking a hit, but don't forget, it's a small price to pay for the wonderful innovation we see in the recording industries today... :)
...Oh wait a second...
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
I don't see the problem. There have been very few successful warranty claims against software companies that disclamed warranties, and they generally were in situations involving gross misrepresentation. If they're worried about warranty claims, they should sell an extended warranty, or get one of the remaining Linux companies to do so.
Looking at the release doesn't click. What would the RIAA or MPAA have to do with Warrenty? I think Patent infringement and reverse engineering a product when it's shrink wrap lic. forbids it is far more likely.
Something smells. You have a developer who work for Pioneer on the project. Wierd statements that aren't logical. My guess is that someone shot a warning shot across the bow, and that someone seems to have learned something from the RIAA not to put it in writting.
I haven't used it lately but when XCDRoast used to be a Tk frontend to gcombust it displayed this really ridiculous disclaimer when executed. I'm paraphrasing but it went something like this:
I understand that this software will probably erase my hard drive, kill my pets, make California sink into the Pacific Ocean and the Earth to crash into the sun.
I think a good approach to any bonehead that would sue a Free/Open project is take the ridiculous disclaimer to the ridiculous extreme:
I understand I got this for free and have no expectation that it is fit for any purpose whatsover.
I understand that terrible things are likely to happen if persist in running this software such as permanent damage to system components and loss of data.
I understand that this sequence of prompts is going to look GREAT in court should I be obtuse enough to sue anybody anyway.
I understand that there is no way in hell that I accidentally agreed to this.
If I sue in spite of all of this, then I agree that contents of this dialog are admission that I'm bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
If I'm still obtuse enough to sue then I agree that I'm too stupid to waste a court's time and am a vexatious litigant.
Any version of this software lacking the click through disclaimers is not the responsibility of this Project. For that matter neither is this one.
There should be no option to disable the disclaimers. That's the price of getting to edit video or otherwise operate a computer for free.
You can download the labels and everything. Whoa...
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I realize part of the isssue here is the concern over attacks against GPL'd studio/production software. But this issue does als make me wonder about recording softwares, such as Cakewalk's Sonar, Motu's Performer and OpCodes CuBase ?
Or what does this say to Real Network, who gives the Basic version of their Real Producer product away for free ?
Either way, I find this decision disturbing and somewhat depresssing as Linux was just getting around to providing some serious multi-media production capability, at a cost that agrees with most home studio/users.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
Even though I had left off downloading it for a while I luckily found it again.
Seems to me that if you sign a disclaimer saying you wouldn't dream of suing them for bugs it should be okay no?
Coming from someone who'se seen production with a custom mac premiere/raid system I can tell you crashes and such are not unknown in the commercial world.. anyway.
Should be a nifty tool and a mother lode of knowledge for anyone who wants to learn about video programming!