Slashdot Mirror
Divx Now Adware Supported Only
bogomip_bandit writes "The divx codec is no longer free, no strings attached. Until recently, when downloading the codec from divx.com, one could select Dr Divx for a price, Divx Pro for a price, the divx codec for free, or the divx codec with bundled adware to help support divx development etc. Recently the site has changed. Now when one visits the download page, the only free codec you can download is adware supported. This means even to just watch divx movies and not do any actual enncoding, one has to install adware on their machine. I for one will be finding a different video codec." Sounds like a good reason (if you needed one) to look curiously at Ogg Theora. Update: 08/20 20:04 GMT by T : Correction: As several readers have pointed out, the bare codec is still available, it's just listed below the payware / adware versions.
Anyone volunteering to do for DivX what Kazaalite did for Kazaa?
Heaven forbid that the developers might want some compensation out of their efforts.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
We all got hooked on Divx. The Divx people know it. It will take at least a year for the effects of this to reverse itself and for the Divx encoders/users to switch to another format. Let's hope the Ogg folks come up with a viable alternative, or hey... why not just stick with what we have now until we can reverse engineer it into a OSS clone?
put the what in the where?
Interested to know whether the Slashdot editors validate incoming information to see if what the poster is stating has any truth to it.
<sigh>
I mean, it would take 3 seconds to check the validity of this! I can't believe crap like this gets through, and stories that are actually worth reading are rejected over and over again. I know its horribly off topic, but I only wish everyone would make their PHB's read the link.
How can I use my mod points to rate this entire article 'WRONG'? :)
It's an interesting idea.
First, you get the early adopter types to use it and spread it around by offering it for free. These same people start using it to encode movies, because they're techy types.
Once it hits the mainstream, offer multiple versions -- free, so that techies can still get it and propogate it, and ad-supported, so that nontechs who want the "extra" (ie useless) features will watch the ads.
Eventually it becomes so common within the mainstream community that you feel you can lose the free version -- the techies will move on to something else, or keep using their old free version, but the established mainstream use will keep growing -- and so will the ad revenue.
I don't LIKE it, but it certainly seems to have worked. Imagine how difficult it will be to wean our nontechnical family members to a new codec... "But you said DivX was better than all the others, and I don't care about the ads!"
So something is good until someone starts trying to recoup the costs of their investments? Come on folks, get real. Codec development is costly, in addition, so is having it downloaded by millions. Perhaps if more people were willing to give back to projects they wouldn't be forced to do such.
scott
What's with this thing call "professionalism", that you think MPEG sounds professional? The software is free, the naming is quaint? So?
Personally, I do not see stripping out the ad-ware as an option.
If there is software I like, and no non-adwre alternative is available. I make the choice
1) Pay For the software
2) Allow the ad-ware to be installed, and fully functional
3) Find an alternative.
If you don't like the distribution model, don't use the software, the argument for stealing it out of distaste for the distribution method instead simply doesn't hold water.
I think the guilt-free popularity of things like Ad-Ware and cydoor.dll replacements its preventing new players from entering the subsidised market. Personally, I would love to watch a thirty second ad, or have an ad banner in some software, if it meant it was sold for a subsidised price I could afford (3D studio max for example, I will never be able to afford it, but loved playing with it when I had a chance). It just wont happen in the current market.
paul reinheimer
Am I right, here, people? Back me up, hah?
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
My problem with this is that the Pro versions (which I'd gladly pay for) have similar copy protection schemes as Windows XP. I refuse to support software that requires internet registration and where, if I add a new hard drive to my computer, decides to stop working. I hesitate to say that it /might/ be ok from a company like Microsoft, whom we assume will be around for some time, but who knows if DivX is going to up and fold, leaving us high and dry with software we've paid for but can't use?
Nope, if the free codec ever goes away, that will mark the end of DivX ever being installed on my system. It's ok, XVid is really coming along nicely anyway.
Doesn't the correction make this a non-story?
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
"If you don't like the distribution model, don't use the software, the argument for stealing it out of distaste for the distribution method instead simply doesn't hold water."
I'm not sure what definition of stealing you are using, but it is certainly not one I am aware of. The copyright holder sent to the user an authorized copy of DIVX. So, there's no copyright violation. The user decicides to change the copywrited work that was sent to them, via the removal of adware, which is well within their fair use rights.
If anything, this is a matter of contract law, where the user is most likely violating the "User Agreement". Even in that case, this is akin to someone offering a free radio, the only string attached was inside the box that the radio is contained in is a bag sealed with a sticker saying "By opening this package, you agree that the radio will play advertisements at random, even when the radio is off, over the current station." and in response to it, the user merely opens the radio and removes the chip that has the advertisements. It's his radio, he can do as he wishes with it.
It's the users copy of DIVX, they can do as they wish with it.
Burn Hollywood Burn
There's a file in one of the folders (Divx Codec i think) that contains a file "gain_trickler.exe" which is set to startup in the windows registry. Just delete the entry in regedit and delete or rename the file. (I'd give exact instructions, but I'm at work now with no access to the program...it's not hard to figure out though.)
It is absolutely shameful that this was posted. It is hard to believe that /. editors couldn't even be bothered to scroll through the entire download page to see that there is still a link for the fee codec.
That being said, this does show how vulnerable we are to "bait and switch" methods. Divx has been widely adopted because it was free. If all of a sudden we DID need to pay money or have adware on our PCs to use the newer version, it would cause problems.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
The whole thing was proved incorrect anyway, so why keep it on the front page?
XViD is on the path to surpass DiVX, being rapidly developed open source.
Nothing is different for the end-user's experience. Encoding is a teenie bit more flakey than DiVX, but I'd expect it to have surpassed DiVX within a year in the quality/compression department.
Now only if we can drum up enough support to put Real and QT out of business. >:-)
http://www.xvid.org/
Yeah, this irks the heck out of me. The FAQ also solicits outside developers to "hack away" and help get it ready...but with Xiph's continuing silence on the project and a lack of documentation, nobody but Xiph can really contribute anything...
All is not lost, though - Dan Miller has actually been actively working on specifications for the Theora codec and such, and there has been a LITTLE work that's shown up in CVS since the Alpha 2 release. Just nothing real recent.
It sounds as though all that's REALLY left to reach Beta (at which point the API should be standardized and 'outsiders' will be able to effectively use Ogg Theora) is agreement on a couple of aspects of the container format, if Xiph ever gets around to finishing that. You can see the details of what's left HERE. That page is guessing "August" for the beta. Hey, they've still got 10 days, they MIGHT make it...
A couple of other points:
- MPlayer, in traditional 'play everything' fashion, now has current working support for the current Theora CVS version in its own CVS - files encoded with the example_encoder program included in the Theora CVS sources play back fine on the code in MPlayer's CVS
- In my experience, Ogg Theora looks really promising - the quality (to my eye, anyway) looks at least as good as mpeg4. It seems to become 'blurry' rather than 'blocky' at lower bitrates, which in my opinion doesn't look as bad. The example encoder is completely unoptimized, so it's very slow, but it does work.
- There is now also apparently a windows-compatible example playback program included in Theora CVS called 'splayer'. You'll need a package called 'portaudio' to run it.
So, in short, it's going to take some attention from Xiph to get it done, which may take a while, but it IS in a state where it can be productively 'played with'. Perhaps more people playing with it would encourage more developer attention on it from Xiph and associates...Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
I'm pretty disturbed by the fact that:
I mean, I know Slashdot isn't the New York Times. I know it's fun to laugh at the lousy jobs the editors do, and the lousy job the people submitting stories do, and how awful people's spelling and grammar are, but c'mon! This is getting ridiculous.
If OSDN can't afford to hire editors, fact checkers, or anything else, try to recruit volunteers! Do it like the moderation system. Allow random users to see stories that are about to be posted and fact check them. You could have "verified true" and "verified false", then "metaverification" to keep the fact checkers honest.
I'd be happy to check the facts and the grammar of a few stories a month for free, in exchange for others doing it the rest of the time. Isn't that the whole idea of Open Source? Many eyes, few bugs? One person's effort helping thousands more?