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.

17 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. Re:Is this saying what I think it is? by theancient1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. the babelfish version... by davey23sol · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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
    1. Re:the babelfish version... by Thagg · · Score: 4, Informative
      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 love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  5. Something more may be going on here by Compulawyer · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Although the site says the liability concerns are with the "warranty" exemptions and the GPL, I suspect that these proffered reasons, although valid in and of themselves, are not the primary reasons for this move.

    Generally, the warranty provisions with which a software maker must be concerned are these three:

    1. Express Warranties - any factual statement the manufacturer makes about the quality/features of the product;
    2. Implied Warranty of Merchantability - implied by law warranty that the software is of "fair average quality"; and
    3. Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose -- implied by law when a manufacturer supplies software that it represents is adequate or designed for a particular use or need.

    4. 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.

  6. Re:Mirrors? by dane23 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It looka like Tucows still has it.

    --


    Warning! Keep Out of Eyes! Wash Out with Water! Don't Drink Soap! Dilute! Dilute!
  7. Re:Mirrors? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  8. Re:Mirrors? by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --

    Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
  9. 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!

  10. Re:I am not a lawyer, but.. by Malic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think what is happening is this (someone correct me if I am wrong)...

    The makers of Broadcast 2000 realize the people are ACTUALLY using their software for high-end (that's the "expensive" part) projects. Such users become dependent on Broadcast 2000 and have a lot to lose should the software have serious bug in it.

    The developers don't have any legal obligation to fix such a hypothetical bug (well, actually with the DMCA *THEY MAY*), though I am sure they no doubt would - eventually. But this could blow a multi-million dollar deadline for a production house.

    The DMCA insists that you always have someone you can sue (the "warrenty" issue).

    The biggest problem with this part of the DMCA is that it seeks to hide the fact that computing, by it's nature, is *a risk*. In the Peter G. Neumann sense. The use of ANY technology implies a certain amount of risk/faith - fire resistant gear as a hard example.

    The law is being made to hold responsibility beyond what is reasonable in the physical world. Sometimes things don't work out - that's life.

    Unfortunately, in the US we would like someone, anyone, to be responsible other than ourselves.

    --
    I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
  11. 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.
  12. Re:I am not a lawyer, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The problem is simple, and highlights what is to me the worst aspect of the DMCA.


    The DMCA only applies to "consumer" equipment, not "professional" equipment. What's the difference? Nobody knows.


    As we have seen in the music production arena over the last couple of decades, as pro equipment gets cheaper there becomes a "prosumer" class of equipment - professional quality, consumer prices.


    The DMCA tries to insure that this will never happen with video production. Anything cheap enough to be consumer is automatically limited in terms of the functionality it can offer.

  13. I think this is a hoax. by mrAgreeable · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."

  14. These guys seem really cool by x+mani+x · · Score: 4, Offtopic

    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.

  15. Re:I am not a lawyer, but.. by wings · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.