Slashdot Mirror


MPlayer Alleges KISS Technology Violating GPL

bfree writes "Not for the first time, the people at MPlayer think they have found their code being distributed binary only, this time in at least one of KISS Techologies products. In their traditional quiet style the full story is now the first piece of news on their homepage including string comparisons between the player ROM and MPlayer. The 'evidence' presented relates to subtitle identification, where the KISS ROM includes the same list, in order, of subtitle formats as MPlayer (including their own format mpsub) and MPlayer's patterns for each of the formats are also there identically."

7 of 423 comments (clear)

  1. Where's the accusation? by Brahmastra · · Score: 5, Informative

    If anyone is wondering where the link with the actual accusation is, it is on the main page of Mplayer's website.

  2. Re:source available for download... by helmutjd · · Score: 5, Informative

    That archive only contains the source for busybox and uclinux... no mplayer source is included, which means it's still a GPL violation.

    Not to mention the fact that you need to include a copy of the full text of the GPL with your binaries, which they also seem to fail to do.

  3. Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... by rehabdoll · · Score: 5, Informative

    IANAL, but the GPL is a license, nothing else. You cant lose your copyright just because the license is invalid.

  4. Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... by Curtman · · Score: 5, Informative

    If I write a piece of software, it is copyrighted by me. If I choose to release my software with a license attached, that gives you the right to use my software under the terms of that license. If for some reason that license is invalid, the software is still copyrighted by me, and you no longer have the rights you once did under that license. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

  5. Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Fortunato NC wrote: The problem is that while you can't lose your copyright because of distibution under an invalid license, it's hard to prove damages if you were distributing something essentially for free and someone else comes and packages it and makes money with it.

    This is not that big a problem in the US. The US Copyright Act provides several remedies: (i) injunction (a court order for the infringer to stop), (ii) damages based on the copyright holder's actual damages _and_ the copyright violators profits or (iii) statutory damages (that is, damages specified by the statute without any need to show actual damages).

  6. Re:A taste of their own medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    don't Mplayer distribute hacked unauthorised divX,mpg4 and quicktime and realaudio .dlls for win32 ?

    No, they don't. You're probably thinking of the Penguin Liberation Front codec pack, which is not part of mplayer itself.

    You can compile mplayer entirely from source with DivX, mpeg4 and Quicktime support. This support comes from GPL'd source code, not from hacked binaries.

  7. copyright holder entitled to infringer's profits by Brian+Ristuccia · · Score: 5, Informative

    Now take them to court because they are redistributing the content without a license. Easy case to prove, but the penalty is based on damages.

    Actually, the award is not necessarily based on the copyright holder's actual damages. According to 17 USC 504 (a), "an infringer of copyright is liable for either... the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c)." The emphasis on the additional profits language is mine, but it's important: the copyright holder is entitled to any additional profits the infringer made through use of the infringing material.

    Even in cases where it's difficult to prove damages or additional profits from the infringing material, the copyright holder is entitled to statutory damages. See 17 USC 504 (c). That's $30,000 for infringement in general, and $150,000 if it's willful infringement. An infringer who uses language like "KISS off" or an infringer finding themselves back in court for doing it again will probably be facing the $150,000 number. Paying the judgement does not entitle you to future use of the copyrighted work.