Google Pulls Open Source CoreAVC Project Over DMCA Complaint

rippe77 writes "Google has taken down the open-source project CoreAVC for Linux due to a DMCA complaint. The CoreAVC codec is a commercial high-definition H.264 DirectShow filter for windows provided by CoreCodec Inc.. The CoreAVC for Linux project provided various patches for Linux applications (mplayer, MythTV, xine) to use these DirectShow decoder filters in Linux. The takedown is quite controversial, as the CoreAVC project did not provide any copyrighted material — only the means to use the DirectShow filters in Linux." (The takedown notice is not yet up at Chilling Effects, but Google's page has a link that will take you there when it is.)

Comments

This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge, &a

[base3]

They drop projects faster than Paris Hilton's panties in the face of legal threats. Version control over Freenet or the like would be a good start.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Did not have time to register...

Interesting how this comes on the heels of Adobe and Open Source maneuvers.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=571

Draw your own conclusions.

No..

[rastoboy29]

(The takedown notice is not yet up at Chilling Effects, but Google's page has a link that will take you there when it is.)

No, Google's page has a link to Chilling Effects homepage. Where did the submitter get the idea that "it will take you there when it is"? Please people, I know it's a bit trivial but please put on your reading comprehension hats.

Re:No..

[peipas]

If you click the DMCA complaint link on the Google project page it takes you to the specific takedown to which the submitter refers, not the main page.

Re:No..

[Score Whore]

I'm guessing you didn't actually click the link you are referring to. It doesn't take you to a take down notice, it takes you to a "uh, the notice you are looking for is not here." notice.

Re:No..

[Zerth]

Exactly, it takes you to "where it will be" as it said in the article, which the GGP said was BS and the GP refuted.

Re:No..

[Anaerin]

I'm guessing you didn't actually click the link you are referring to. It doesn't take you to a take down notice, it takes you to a "uh, the notice you are looking for is not here." notice.

And I'm guessing you didn't actually read the summary above (not even TFA), where it says:

(The takedown notice is not yet up at Chilling Effects, but Google's page has a link that will take you there when it is.)

File a counter notice

[RedWizzard]

If Google have received a notice then they have no option but to take down the site. Someone needs to file a counter notice, then Google will reinstate them.

Re:File a counter notice

[RedWizzard]

The law is clear: they get a notice they have to take down the material in question. Of course they have a legal department, and that department will be telling them to take it down.

Re:File a counter notice

[BobPaul]

Well, they don't *have* to take it down. It's just that if the DMCA complaint is valid, then Google and the person responsible for posting the content can both be held liable if Google doesn't.

From a legal standpoint, it looks like it's wise for Google to always take stuff down. However, from a customer retention standpoint, it might be wise for Google to occasionally refuse when DMCA notices are blatantly inaccurate.

Re:File a counter notice

[v1]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but they do not have no option here. The safe harbor thing basically says if you take it down immediately they can't sue you. So if they are not in the right to ASK you to take it down, you can tell them where to stick it. (and maybe then they sue you anyway, but that's always how it goes)

Just taking it down is of course the safer route, but them you get into the use of takedown notices as a scare tactic, sent out in many more cases than are appropriate, and still getting almost everything taken down.

Insta-caving to takedown notices just encourages them to abuse them more tomorrow, so this should not be looked upon as a good thing. Sure, if they sent YOU a takedown notice, maybe it would be prudent to take it down since you can't really lift a lawsuit even if you ARE in the right, but then there's even that 1% chance they find against you and you lose your shirt. Google on the other hand, has deep pockets and real lawyers on retainer that can evaluate a takedown notice, determine if it's something they need to comply with or not, and tell them where to shove it if they can.

Re:File a counter notice

[zappepcs]

You have to look at it like Google's legal team will be looking at it: Pick your battles! While this might clearly not be right, is it the one that we want to take to court? What are the 14 chess moves if we leave it up? How will this come out in court and will it hurt our position in ANY other legal situations?

What Google really needs here is someone to tell them Hey, put that back up! here's the counter DMCA notice! Then Google risks little in terms of far reaching results of putting it back. That is the way the DMCA works, so somebody on the project should do that, pronto, asap, yesterday even.

Re:File a counter notice

[RedWizzard]

Well, they don't *have* to take it down. It's just that if the DMCA complaint is valid, then Google and the person responsible for posting the content can both be held liable if Google doesn't. IANAL, but it's not clear to me that Google can relinquish safe harbor status for one complaint without also relinquishing it for all other complaints. Far better to let the user deal with it - all they have to do is post a counter notice. It's not hard. Why would or should Google risk themselves just to save a user from having to post a counter notice?

From a legal standpoint, it looks like it's wise for Google to always take stuff down. However, from a customer retention standpoint, it might be wise for Google to occasionally refuse when DMCA notices are blatantly inaccurate. That is true only if there are other ISPs that refuse to take down content. I'm not aware of any.

Re:File a counter notice

[Frosty Piss]

You have to look at it like Google's legal team will be looking at it

Exactly.

Google's legal team works for Google. Google is in business to make money, not get wrapped up in lawsuits about idealism rather than profit.

Yes, I know! It's hard to believe.

And if I had the private number to Larry's and Sergey's yacht, I'd call them and give them a piece of my mind.

Re:File a counter notice

[RedWizzard]

Google can give up safe harbor protection but it's not clear to me (IANAL) that they can do so for a single complaint. And why should they? All the user has to do is to post a counter notice. Why should Google expose themselves to possible liability just to save a user having to post a notice?

Insta-caving to takedown notices just encourages them to abuse them more tomorrow, so this should not be looked upon as a good thing. Sure, if they sent YOU a takedown notice, maybe it would be prudent to take it down since you can't really lift a lawsuit even if you ARE in the right, but then there's even that 1% chance they find against you and you lose your shirt. Google on the other hand, has deep pockets and real lawyers on retainer that can evaluate a takedown notice, determine if it's something they need to comply with or not, and tell them where to shove it if they can. The copyright owner can still sue the user regardless of whether Google honors the takedown notice or not. Google refusing in no way protects the user from liability, it only increases Google's potential liability. Yes, they may stop some incorrect notices, but the user can do that just as easily by simply filing a counter notice.

Re:File a counter notice

[Barraketh]

And if I had the private number to Larry's and Sergey's yacht, I'd call them and give them a piece of my mind.

And you would say... what exactly? Google is doing nothing more than obeying the law. The law very clearly states that in order to have 'safe harbor' protection from copyright infringement lawsuits, Google must take down the content, and it's up to the person who put it up in the first place to challenge the DMCA notice.

I don't think Google could fight this particular battle even if they wanted to. I'm not entirely sure about this point, but I think DMCA is an all or nothing deal - you either don't monitor any content, or you monitor all of it, so if they don't obey this DMCA notice, they're liable for all the other copyrighted material they host/link to.

The point is, you don't like it - feel free to lobby congress to change the law, or start a defense fund so that the CoreAVC team can go to court and prove they're not infringing on anyone's copyrights. Just don't blame Google for obeying the law of the land.

Re:File a counter notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, the parent flew right over your head. WHOOOOOOSH!

Re:File a counter notice

[rtb61]

Google is an advertising and marketing company. Typical publishers are major users of advertising, not only to sell their content but also buried within their content. Google is coming under pressure because growth is slowing even with overseas expansion. They are becoming very sensitive to the demands of publishers and are basically just starting to roll over at every demand made.

Their feel good marketing campaign which gained them a lot of market acceptance is losing it's tarnish and they are being exposed for just another cynical marketing company. Easy cheap reaction to a DMCA, kill the content, if you do not have lawyers reading them you can employ less lawyers. Now consider the return they get per user is pretty minimal, so you can justify very little cost per user, certainly not the cost of reading a DMCA, investigating the history of the content, contacting and discussing the content with the people who put it up and then contacting and discussing that with the lawyers who submitted the DMCA, however you will spread a bit of B$ to hide the penny counting cynicism that puts profit before 'free' speech.

It is becoming obvious that the DMCA was specifically written so that it could be readily and cheaply abused. A real tangible indication of a governments willingness to subjugate the majority who can't really afford 'free' speech to the demands of a rich and greedy minority.

Re:File a counter notice

[russotto]

I don't think Google could fight this particular battle even if they wanted to. I'm not entirely sure about this point, but I think DMCA is an all or nothing deal - you either don't monitor any content, or you monitor all of it, so if they don't obey this DMCA notice, they're liable for all the other copyrighted material they host/link to.

Actually, no. The DMCA does not create any liability. Whatever protection from liability existed before the DMCA still exists. See 17 USC 512(l) This protection was actually quite substantial; the main reason the copyright interests supported the DMCA is because in exchange for something they didn't actually have (liability for online hosting providers and search engines), they got something they wanted (takedowns outside the judicial process).

Further, failure to act on one DMCA notice should not expose the provider to liability with respect to other unrelated claims of infringement; it would take some twisted legal maneuvering to get that one across (or perhaps a judge with the same motivations as the district judge in the Verizon case). The only way they could lose DMCA safe harbor for everything is if they didn't designate an agent to receive the notices.

So yes, a service provider could receive, e.g., a notice from the James Bond people for "PussyGalore.jpg", check and see that it's a picture of your cats, and tell the James Bond people to stuff it, and still be protected by the DMCA safe harbor for "Octopussy.mpg" which turned out to be the actual movie.

Re:File a counter notice

[tepples]

it's not clear to me that Google can relinquish safe harbor status for one complaint without also relinquishing it for all other complaints. Far better to let the user deal with it - all they have to do is post a counter notice. And the user eats all costs of business interruption while the disputed content stays down for a minimum of two weeks (10 business days).

Re:File a counter notice

[RedWizzard]

it's not clear to me that Google can relinquish safe harbor status for one complaint without also relinquishing it for all other complaints. Far better to let the user deal with it - all they have to do is post a counter notice. And the user eats all costs of business interruption while the disputed content stays down for a minimum of two weeks (10 business days). Yes. If the cost is really that high the user is free to sue to recover those costs. The law sucks, I'm not defending it. I just don't see why people expect Google to assume the risks.

Re:File a counter notice

[ben there...]

And the user eats all costs of business interruption while the disputed content stays down for a minimum of two weeks (10 business days). If the content were that important to a business, it would probably make sense to pay $10/year for a domain, and roughly $20/month for hosting.

Rather than relying on someone else who can take your content down at any time for any reason.

Re:File a counter notice

[tepples]

If the cost is really that high the user is free to sue to recover those costs. The service provider is statutorily immune. From 17 USC 512(g):

a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider's good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing.

Did you mean sue the party who served the notice?

Re:File a counter notice

[tepples]

If the content were that important to a business, it would probably make sense to pay $10/year for a domain, and roughly $20/month for hosting. The $20/mo hosting provider still has to take down the content for two weeks to keep its own safe harbor under the DMCA or foreign counterparts.

Re:File a counter notice

[BobPaul]

Did you mean sue the party who served the notice? That's what I assumed he meant.

Re:File a counter notice

[RedWizzard]

Did you mean sue the party who served the notice? Yes.

Re:File a counter notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Google does have 24 hours to take the offending item down.

Re:File a counter notice

[nguy]

And the user eats all costs of business interruption while the disputed content stays down for a minimum of two weeks (10 business days).

That's the law. It may be a bad law, but it's from our elected representatives. Google is just complying with the law.

Re:File a counter notice

[wheelie207]

I find that the Company that posted the notice is also in violation of the GPL License as they say on their web site they use open source and close it and only open some to only third party. It's clearly written that any open source modification are to be distributed back to the community and from the Companies web site, thats not whats happening.

Re:File a counter notice

[Dan Berlin]

Actually, I didn't actually hide the project from the public until Alan (project owner) emailed me and told me he wasn't going to file a counter notice (which i had encouraged him to do). Don't let facts get in the way though!

Re:File a counter notice

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not clear to me that Google can relinquish safe harbor status for one complaint without also relinquishing it for all other complaints

Citation, please? Why is this not clear to you? DMCA notices are not tied together.

Google should evaluate any notice they receive to take an action, particularly when it affects their customers.

Re:File a counter notice

[ArsenneLupin]

That is true only if there are other ISPs that refuse to take down content. I'm not aware of any. Is that so? If yes, pick a random small-company website hosted by a big ISP, make up some stupid shit and file a DMCA notice against it (not with your real name and address, of course!). Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually, if enough people do this, and if they target the right companies (lawyer's firms, family of influential politicians) this will create enough of a stink to repeal that stupid law. Or at least, enough of a stink for ISPs to take a closer look at the DMCA takedown notices that they receive.

Re:File a counter notice

[Frosty Piss]

Why don't you go back to chugging Google's COCK, you're just another sheep who knows how to give blow jobs.

Business posturing

[Anonymous Coward]

Did not have time to register...

Interesting how this comes on the heels of Adobe and Open Source maneuvers.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=571

Draw your own conclusions.

Where Else?

[TubeSteak]

Google and SourceForge may be convienent, but US coders should really start to consider hosting in countries that do not have DMCA-esque laws.

Re:Where Else?

[lbelloq]

Is there any country where the DMCA cannot be enforced?

Re:Where Else?

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA is a US only law. It is inapplicable in other countries.

Re:Where Else?

[smittyoneeach]

As long as people continue to want entities like the US Fed, the EU, and the UN to solve all of their problems, we can expect more, not less, crappy legislation.
Concentrated power makes manipulation too easy.

Re:Where Else?

[BobPaul]

DMCA is a US law. It can only be enforced in the US. This is why, for example, piratebay.org has been able to get by ignoring DMCA take down notices for the past several years.

That said, I believe most EU countries, as well as Australia and recently Canada have laws similar to the DMCA. Other than Sweden I'm not sure of any specific countries that don't, though I'd venture to guess Russia, the middle east, india, china, the Koreas, africa, and most S american countries.

Re:Where Else?

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA is a US only law.

It is inapplicable in other countries. That doesn't help US coders, of course.

Re:Where Else?

[poetmatt]

Actually no, most countries do not use or follow a DMCA law. Israel for example, outright refuses it, as it allows abuse in the form of takedowns. Israel has like a "notify 3x before takedown" type scenario.

Re:Where Else?

[JustinOpinion]

That said, I believe most EU countries, as well as Australia and recently Canada have laws similar to the DMCA. FYI: A DMCA-like law was proposed in Canada, but it was never ratified. Actually, it is being repeatedly tabled, but has always been struck down. For the time being, Canada doesn't have any DMCA-like legal provisions. (Refer to Michael Geist's blog for more information.)

Re:Where Else?

[Anonymous Coward]

hosting in countries that do not have DMCA-esque laws I'd rather not host a project on a server owned by the Russian Business Network.

Re:Where Else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any country where the DMCA cannot be enforced? I would say "any other country", but since the USA has turned into a pack of bullies lately, and has even seized HW not in their country (them stealing some UK servers for IndyMedia comes to mind) for violating their laws... so... um...

Who knows?

Re:Where Else?

[Crayon Kid]

That said, I believe most EU countries, as well as Australia and recently Canada have laws similar to the DMCA.

That's a strange belief (not to mention wrong). Why do you assume it's normal for most countries to have something similar to the DMCA? Most countries' enforcement of copyright does not reach the ridiculous levels seen in the US.

Re:Where Else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh really? I can think of numerous crappy state laws in recent years, but not a single bad "law" from the UN. The EU is struggling against corruption, but it's doing a lot better than some of its member states.

I'll concede that the US Fed has become a disaster in recent years, but it has nothing to do with people wanting them to solve problems.

Re:Where Else?

[BoberFett]

Only because the UN isn't a lawmaking body. If it were, you could expect their corruption to make corrupt politicians at the national level look like saints.

Re:Where Else?

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, I believe most EU countries, as well as Australia and recently Canada have laws similar to the DMCA. While there are talks about it, Canada does not yet have a DMCA style law.

Re:Where Else?

[BobPaul]

Actually no what? What part of my statement are you negating? I never said Israel had a DMCA like law. In fact, I suspected middle eastern countries probably didn't.

Re:Where Else?

[ben there...]

I can think of numerous crappy state laws in recent years, but not a single bad "law" from the UN. As the other poster said, the UN doesn't make laws. They make resolutions, but at best those can be considered guidelines.

The closest thing would be international treaties, and I can easily think of a few bad ones.

Re:Where Else?

[BobPaul]

I didn't say most countries, I said most EU countries, Australia, and Canada. Canada I guess I was wrong about. They have managed to stave it off. As far as the EU, I guess I saw a bunch of articles like this and this a few years back. Additionally, I seem to remember at least Switzerland, the UK, and Germany passing stricter regulation.

If you could clarify the situation for me, I and other readers here would be grateful, I'm sure.

Re:Where Else?

[Anonymous Coward]

The magic word is EUCD. According to wikipedia Spain and the Czech Republic are the only two member states that don't have it yet.

Re:Where Else?

[Max Littlemore]

That said, I believe most EU countries, as well as Australia and recently Canada have laws similar to the DMCA. Other than Sweden I'm not sure of any specific countries that don't, though I'd venture to guess Russia, the middle east, india, china, the Koreas, africa, and most S american countries.

Australia actually relaxed copyright laws in 2006 or 07 I think. We had silly copyright laws that until the DMCA were far worse than the US. Thankfully they are not generally enforced to the letter, or just about everyone throughout the 80s and 90s would have been gaoled for taping their favorite TV shows.

Oh and by the way, africa is a continent, not a country.
Don't thank me. Just doing my bit to help one of our American friends overcome their inherent failure to grok geography.

Re:Where Else?

[RiotingPacifist]

Why cant they simply give the code to a non-us company to host?
I hear Mr Svartholm uses DMCA notices as toilet paper.

Re:Where Else?

[PingXao]

Like the IOC, International Olympic Committee. Has there ever been a more corrupt organiztion on the face of the earth? The mafia (no such thing), the RIAA, the MPAA, lawyers as a whole and bankers... take them all and roll them up into one big ball and they've got NOTHING over the IOC.

Re:Where Else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next thing you're going to tell me Australia is a continent!

Re:Where Else?

[poetmatt]

Hi Bob,

You siad "I believe most countries have laws similar to to the DMCA" and what I'm saying is that places such as Israel indeed, do not. Many countries do not follow DMCA and outright refuse it, even Australia in many cases.

Not "exactly" the same sure, no country has that, but many actually do not allow the same level of infringement and takedowns that the US has.

Re:Where Else?

[Jurily]

Sweden, apparently.

Re:Where Else?

[clint999]

Did you mean sue the party who served the notice?

Re:Where Else?

[aim2future]

And US citizens should consider a revolution against a system that can create things as insane as the DMCA.

Earlier I wanted to move to US, but with the incredible development of the law system and its abuse of control this is not an attractive option any more.

DRM is DefectiveByDesign , but DMCA is a law so insane that it is very hard to understand that a US revolution has not happened yet. The problem is probably that the coders who are aware about the problem is such a minority, despite that the hacker mentality would be to fix the problem with the system.

DMCA, The US patent system and laws, The Patriot Act and the removal of Habeas corpus as well as the invention of DRM and region coding on DVD as well as an insecure social security and an insane health insurance system makes US an unattractive country.

However, I like the US people and the US nature very much. I am an optimist (85% according a recent test) so I believe (and I got 100% in a self-esteem test...) that the US future can be fixed. I believe that those insane laws and inventions, as well as the social security system, medical security and also a fast , climate friendly, low energy communication system to replace the oil dependency can be developed within the next 20 years.

With good ideas, optimism and persistence, things will change to the better!

Hackers, coders, geeks, nerds, all over the world unite , there is a world that need fixing!

Re:Where Else?

[QuoteMstr]

Concentrated power makes manipulation too easy.

Indeed. Why is it any better to concentrate power in corporations than in government though? At least government is nominally accountable to the people. That's why I favor strong government regulation of business. The DMCA came about because the balance of power is too heavily weighted, via lobbyists, toward corporations.

Re:Where Else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and if we were smurfs, blue would be the new pink.

What's your point? What you've said isn't insightful, it's pure speculation.

Re:Where Else?

[karmatic]

The DMCA is very much broken, but this takedown notice was not in keeping with company policy. An employee got a little ahead of himself.

The US future may be fixable, but between the food shortages, and the housing crisis, our economy (and our freedoms) aren't getting fixed anytime soon.

Of course, we're in good company - given the 681 TRILLION derivatives market, it's going to take the entire world economy with us.

Ow.

Re:Where Else?

[smittyoneeach]

After a crossover point, the government is the singleton coroporation.
As I age, it becomes more apparent that Pink Floyd's "Welcome to the Machine" is really an unofficial anthem for a huge chunk of the population.

At least government is nominally accountable to the people.

This is a statement with lots of acceleration, but little mass, and therefore negligible force.
Government accountability is about keeping decision-making power low in the hierarchy, where the decision-maker is more likely to live with the results (good or bad) of the decisions.

Re:Where Else?

[smittyoneeach]

Those treaties, when ratified by a state, become International Law and bind that state.
Even if not ratified by a particular state, they become Customary International Law, and states are pressured to conform.

Re:Where Else?

[BobPaul]

I said "most EU countries". Israel is not part of the European Union. But you are right about Australia. Someone pointed out they just reformed their copyright laws in the past year or two making them better, not worse. The EU still has the EUCD which most European Union nations have implemented and is in some ways worse than the DMCA.

Re:Where Else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

I would like you to meet ISO.

(Captcha is sounds: How fitting. The sound of a billion people all screaming "WRRYYYYYYYYY" at the ISO announcement that OOXML is now a "standard".)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Yes..

[Svenne]

You appear to have missed this sentence:

"If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal at ChillingEffects.org."

Re:Yes..

[OverlordQ]

And you appear to have missed the Editorial:

(The takedown notice is not yet up at Chilling Effects, but Google's page has a link that will take you there when it is.)

Hence:

Notice Unavailable

The cease-and-desist or legal threat you requested is not yet available.

Chilling Effects will post the notice after we process it.

Re:Yes..

[Svenne]

What is this? Ass-backwards-land? Yes, I know what the summary says. I know what the chillingeffects-site says. The complaint of the grand parent was that there was no link to where the the DMCA takedown notice on chillingeffects would be, which was false.

Re:Yes..

[T-Bone-T]

Apparently, this IS Ass-backwards-land. I see no complaint of there not being a link.

Re:Yes..

[Curien]

Then you suck at reading comprehension. The first post in this thread was a complaint that the article summary was wrong because TFA did not provide a link to an *article* on Chilling Effects but rather to the homepage.

Re:Yes..

[Ahnteis]

It is probably hidden and invisible due to the insanely bad implementation of threaded comments with hiding that Slashdot has. Often a comment will be hidden with no way to even tell it's there except that the thread doesn't make sense. (More than usual.) You have to click the "parent" link to find it.

Takedown not controversial...

[maxume]

There isn't anything controversial in the fact that they responded to the takedown notice. If they don't, they can lose their common carrier status and become liable for all content on their servers, which they surely do not want. If they fail to put the project back up given appropriate counter notice, that's controversial.

Re:Takedown not controversial...

[CastrTroy]

That's like AT&T losing their common carrier status because they refuse to kick a known mob boss off their network. I would actually argue, that doing something to stop the illegal activity would cause them to lose their common carrier status. The common carrier status (if Google even has any in this situation) means that they don't have to do anything to stop illegal activity occurring on their network.

Re:Takedown not controversial...

[crankyspice]

There isn't anything controversial in the fact that they responded to the takedown notice. If they don't, they can lose their common carrier status and become liable for all content on their servers, which they surely do not want. If they fail to put the project back up given appropriate counter notice, that's controversial.

Sigh. Google doesn't have "common carrier" status ("common carrier" is a legal term of art with a specific meaning). What they'd lose, if they didn't act "expeditiously" to remove content complained about in a 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3) notice, is the DMCA's "safe harbor" protection.

Also, if they didn't put the content back up after a legally sufficient counter-notice, they'd lose a different aspect of their DMCA safe harbor; it's not "controversial," it's common sense.

Re:Takedown not controversial...

[EveLibertine]

The takedown isn't controversial, but the complaint itself appears to be. I believe conveying this was the intention of the summary, though apparently poorly worded.

Re:Takedown not controversial...

[maxume]

Thanks for the correction.

Core codec is based on open source, they lie

[Anonymous Coward]

The code base of core codec "inc" is based on open source from years gone back. It was closed and $ was charged a year or two ago, but all the code stems from open source, only now that it's closed (and reworked) it's difficult to prove. Liars. Cheats. All for a few measly $.

Torrent?

[JonTurner]

Or post a bittorrent link with the word "banned by DMCA" in the title, ensuring it will NEVER go away and may in fact increase distribution by increasing demand.

It's 1st year economics: scarcity creates demand.

Re:Torrent?

[jlarocco]

It's 1st year economics: scarcity creates demand.

It's 1st year economics, and you managed to fuck it up anyway. Good job.

Supply and demand do not cause each other. In other words, an item being scarce does not imply many people will want it. It implies that the people who *do* want it *may* have to pay a lot, but it doesn't automatically mean those people exist.

Re:Torrent?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 1st year economics: scarcity creates demand.

It's not 1st year economics - it's 1st year marketing. Keep something scarce, make it harder to get, increase buzz, increase demand. See, for example, the Wii. Or Gmail accounts once upon a time.

Re:Torrent?

[xorbe]

Exactly. The buzz created demand, not the scarcity.

Re:This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge,

[Anonymous Coward]

If it will help keep the panties on Paris Hilton, then I'm all for it.

I figured this might happen.

[Zombie Ryushu]

The DMCA is starting to rear one of its real intent. Its use of takedown notices to suppress Linux and other OSS operating systems ability to get advanced technology because if the OSS OSes gain traction they could lose the control they have over multimedia and users could regain fair use rights.

Hopefully, this project made it to the mplayer people in Hungary, or PLF. So it will still be availible.

Re:I figured this might happen.

[maxume]

That's insane.

Re:I figured this might happen.

[Compholio]

The DMCA is starting to rear one of its real intent. Its use of takedown notices to suppress Linux and other OSS operating systems ability to get advanced technology because if the OSS OSes gain traction they could lose the control they have over multimedia and users could regain fair use rights.

That's insane.

Why's that? It seems reasonable to me, F/OSS frequently pushes the "information wants to be free" idea, so I can see companies confusing that with "these people want to 'steal' 'our' content".

Re:I figured this might happen.

[Comsn]

these patches were already sent to the MPlayer project.
but were rejected for various reasons.

here is the post which announced the coreavc-linux project:
http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/2007-July/052959.html

the coreavc codec is still faster than ffmpeg's ffh264 decoder. ffdshow has a multithreaded ffh264, but it was rejected by ffmpeg developers.

ffmpeg has a GSoC project for multithreaded decoding of most codecs.

http://code.google.com/soc/2008/ffmpeg/appinfo.html?csaid=9FD2BF705A5D5DBB

Re:I figured this might happen.

[Kjella]

Wow, how many conspiracy theories you managed to roll into one. With the abundance of free hosting, it's easy to do hit-n-run copyright infringement. It means that one uploads clearly violating content for others to download as long as it lasts until it's taken down. Sending a "we believe you're infringing on our copyright" notice to those uploaders is futile because it'd go unanswered and would only extend the time from something is put up until it can be taken down, if the contact information is valid at all. I've seen plenty comments here on how they wish the SCO vs. IBM case (and Novell etc.) go faster, well it doesn't only work to your benefit.

In order to respond to how easy it's to put information up, they made it easy to take it down as well. I bet most DMCA takedowns go entirely unnoticed because whoever caused it never knew, cared or knew it was correct. We only hear about those cases where someone protests a takedown. It's really easy, there's no burden of proof or anything. All it takes is for someone to say "Hey I'm not a runner and I disagree with the takedown" and the ISPs must put it back up ASAP. I think that's a reasonable arrangement. The fact-checking could be a little better at times but some people here on slashdot want to put them in a catch 22 - without downloading a suspected song they don't have good enough proof, and if they do download suspected songs and it turns out they don't own it they're filthy pirates too.

If this is abuse, send a counter-notice. Get some precedent that this kind of code isn't covered by the DMCA. Then use that next time to show that they knew the takedown would be invalid, and take it from there. There's no need to go freaky over getting a DMCA notice. As far as I know, they can only send it once since the counternotice is basicly a STFU or sue response.

Re:I figured this might happen.

[base3]

All it takes is for someone to say "Hey I'm not a runner and I disagree with the takedown" and the ISPs must put it back up ASAP.

That is not true. The ISP is permitted, not compelled to put the contact back up after having received a counterclaim. Most ISPs decline, preferring to let their customers go rather than deal with the (non-existent, given the safe harbor provision) risk of being sued.

Re:I figured this might happen.

[ardle]

That's insane. Which bit?

Re:I figured this might happen.

[RiotingPacifist]

The more FOSS software out there the less piracy, the smaller the place for these goons, ever wonderd why there isnt much server piracy?

Re:I figured this might happen.

[RiotingPacifist]

Its true particularly true for google/youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8hWIGv5L0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIVOZB2K6Y0
but i suppose its because of thier impending lawsuit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqgWW0z7vM

Re:I figured this might happen.

[karmatic]

Its use of takedown notices to suppress Linux and other OSS operating systems ability to get advanced technology because if the OSS OSes gain traction they could lose the control they have over multimedia and users could regain fair use rights.

Um, no.

The takedown had nothing at all to do with Microsoft, Linux, or DRM. CoreCodec has no problem with "fair use" rights, and uses no DRM in their decoders. So, since CoreAVC doesn't support DRM on Windows, why would it matter if it's ported to Linux?

Re:I figured this might happen.

[Kjella]

That is not true. The ISP is permitted, not compelled to put the contact back up after having received a counterclaim. Most ISPs decline, preferring to let their customers go rather than deal with the (non-existent, given the safe harbor provision) risk of being sued. Read 17512(g)(2)(C), the ISP is compelled:

"replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice"

If not, they can be sued for the takedown as 17512(g)(1) no longer protects them. Any other right to terminate the contract would be outside the DMCA, I guess many free services include the right to terminate it immidiately for any or no reason but if you have a contract with a termination period they are in fact compëlled. Oh, and they're protected from any liability for restoring content under 17512(g)(4).

Re:I figured this might happen.

[maxume]

Companies may well miss-perceive what information wants to be free means, but they weren't doing so in an organized fashion more than 10 years ago when the DMCA written, and that's what 'intent' means, it means that it was written for such purposes.

Re:I figured this might happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't covered by the DMCA because this isn't copyright infringement. No copyrighted information is being distributed. It's like if I started selling a tool that helped people install Goodyear tires on their cars. Then Goodyear sends me a DMCA takedown notice because they want to start selling a similar tool themselves (or my tool allows people to install the tires on a car/truck that Goodyear doesn't want people to install their tires on). They are just hoping to 'make it go away' because a takedown notice is quick and easy; even though this has nothing to do with copyright and/or content protection.

In this case, their codec isn't being distributed. Someone is providing a means to use the CoreAVC codec (which you download from the relevant company's website) with Linux media players by providing installation information and patches to make it work. This is no more an issue of copyright than Lexmark's "content protection" of their ink cartridges had anything to do with protecting copyrightable content.

I realize what you are trying to say about making it easier to take things down. My point is that too many lawyers/law firms utilize the DMCA when it doesn't even apply. And even though these takedown notices say that 'on penalty of perjury,' I don't see any of these lawyers or their clients being held to the fact that they are recklessly using these things like their are kids in a candy shop.

When we hear about people getting takedown notices from NBC just beceause the description on YouTube includes "Saturday Night Live" in it; even though the content is just someone on a webcam ranting about something relating to SNL, do you really think that they are doing their due diligence? I want to see them severly punished for tossing these things out like party favors. If their content is being infringed, then they should use it. That gives them no right to distrupt the lives of others because they can't be bothered to do a little investigation to make sure they are targeting the right people. Just because these people don't have monetary damages due to these takedowns should be irrelevant. It's a breach of ethics to do what they are doing, in my opinion.

Re:I figured this might happen.

[base3]

Compelled doesn't mean a lot when they just terminate the user's service. The loophole you pointed out is one they can drive a station wagon full of mag tapes through. And as to the loss of safe harbor for failing to restore potentially infringing content? I doubt that any judge and jury is going to hold that against the ISP should it be decided infringement had indeed occurred, which is the only case in which the safe harbor would be an issue anyway. So it looks like in the letter the law might compel, but in practice that it only permits.

Re:I figured this might happen.

[Kjella]

I doubt that any judge and jury is going to hold that against the ISP should it be decided infringement had indeed occurred, which is the only case in which the safe harbor would be an issue anyway. No, this is the ISPs liability shield from the user for making the takedown. If they don't do it correctly, you can in theory sue the ISP for damages caused by the takedown even if (or rather, particularly if) there's no infringing content. I agree it's full of loopholes though.

Re:I figured this might happen.

[jedidiah]

The OP said this was about "advanced technology" not just DRM.

Anything interesting these days is going to be tied up in patents that
are just as cumbersome as DRM. The relevant patent holders could do quite
a lot of damage if they decided that a particular platform shouldn't be
allowed to utilize their "property". ...a nice side effect of heavily patent encumbered "standards".

Re:I figured this might happen.

[karmatic]

Well, CoreAVC is "advanced technology" - we're the fastest commercially available software H.264 decoder.

As for being "anti-linux", that's certainly not the case. We have ported our software to the iPhone, OS X, Linux, etc.

The main reason for not selling a Linux version of the software yet is that there are a lot of distributions and players to support, and a lot of testing to do. We have one working internally, and will be selling it when we get it up to the same quality and reliability as our other products.

Re:I figured this might happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

if they do download suspected songs and it turns out they don't own it they're filthy pirates too.

That's a stupid argument. If someone has copyright to a song and downloads a reasonably similar file even if only in title, no court is going to find against them. Additionally, the criminal prosecution of people who have allegedly downloaded copyrighted content in violation of the law is exceptionally rare. Prosecutors have much better things to do with their time.

On the other hand, the MAFIAA loves to go after any and all (even the deceased and infirm) over their allegations. So, yeah, we all should watch out for them. But that (is supposed to be) a civil matter, ahem.

Re:I figured this might happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

>The DMCA is starting to rear one of its real intent.
You know, if you'd begun your post with "IANAL", it would have been a lot funnier than it already is.

Just sayin'

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Mirror of project outside US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a mirror of the project outside the US?

Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[hcmtnbiker]

Pretty simple really. All they had to do was give it a name more like "MPEG-4 AVC for Linux" and they would have been ok. It's really pretty simple, they DONT have the right to use their name in a product that isn't truly related to anything the CoreCodec company.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[Anonymous Coward]

I think trademark is a completely separate issue from DMCA takedowns.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[arkanes]

It is, but that doesn't mean that companies don't issue DMCA takedowns when they really are trying to resolve a trademark issue.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a product at all, just a small patch to make the windows version of coreavc codec work with some linux video players.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[belmolis]

Yes, but if the only real issue is trademark and the issuer of the takedown notice does not own the copyright to the material, issuing a takedown notice is a crime. They are issued under penalty of perjury. So if you just don't like the name because you think it violates your trademark, issuing a takedown notice is not a good idea.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we stop saying 'Copywritten', please?

The 'right' in copyright is to do with the right to copy. Not writing copy.

The name is not copywritten, it is copyright. Or copyrighted, if you really must.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[_Sprocket_]

They are issued under penalty of perjury. So if you just don't like the name because you think it violates your trademark, issuing a takedown notice is not a good idea.

While this is true - I've yet to see any of the numerous questionable uses of the DMCA lead to charges of perjury. Have I missed something?

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[delt0r]

But what about all the patents? mpeg-la licenses are not cheap. After 2010 IIRC you are even supose to pay for content encoded in AVC.

Trademark is the least of there problems.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[karmatic]

It had nothing to do with trademarks. An overzealous employee was under the (mistaken) belief that reverse-engineering is illegal.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[karmatic]

They are issued under penalty of perjury. So if you just don't like the name because you think it violates your trademark, issuing a takedown notice is not a good idea.

The DMCA takedown had nothing to do with perjury; rather, it had to do with reverse-engineering and the fact that the software hard-codes a serial number to bypass copy protection, potentially making it a "circumvention device".

It was still done by an overzealous employee, and was a mistake.

FWIW, if you read the DMCA:

(3) Elements of notification. --

(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

In other words, a DMCA requires a statement under penalty of perjury that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner, and a "good faith" belief that the use is infringing.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[arkanes]

I don't actually expect anything to come of this, because bogus DMCA complaints are common and as far as I know there's never been any sanctions on anyone, even much more grievous offenders than this. But the whole purpose of the clauses you quote above is to *prevent* exactly this use of the DMCA. The entire DMCA complaint was bogus - a lie, if you will. They did not download the files mentioned, they did not contained copyrighted material (even if they violated the DMCA in other ways), and they did not have a good-faith reason to believe that they did (because they didn't, and they didn't check it). Whoever sent that clearly just filled out a boilerplate form without really reading it, involving legal counsel (or misinforming them if they did), and it's exactly this sort of boilerplate abuse that makes the DMCA such a terrible law, despite the controls that are supposedly in place to prevent it. Of course, this is one reason why ChillingEffects.org exists, to document these sort of abuses. And it *is* abuse, even if it was unintentional. The takedown was signed as coming from the CEO of CoreCodec. That certainly takes it beyond the ream of "overzealous employee" and into the range of "we, as a company, fucked up" as far as I'm concerned, and personally I'd expect an apology, if nothing else, for sending a fraudulent DMCA request and for a corporate officer to have exercised such poor judgment.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[SillyNickName]

It's called "selective enforcement" and is one of the cornerstones of the US legal system. If you want to see it enforced, try filing a bogus DMCA take down notice against Microsoft.

Don't send the lawyers in first ...

[Pinky's Brain]

Unless you want to prove you are a dickhead.

Regardless, names do not have copyright protection and there is nothing about trademarks in the DMCA. So either their lawyers are dumb, they intentionally misuse the DMCA or there is something else amiss.

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft

[Unfocused]

So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. You only need to public the source code if you distribute the modified version. If its never distributed, you source code never needs to be distributed either.

Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable. What a load of crap - the GPL doesn't cover this in any way. If a lawyer did indeed give this advice, they should be fired. And FYI, GPL is NOT "GNU Protective License". Its GNU/GPL and stands for GNU General Public Licence.

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft

[pikine]

Gentlemen and Gentleladies, please refute it here (2003), here (Mar 2007), or here (Dec 2007), or or not waste your time at all.

maybe it'll turn out all OK in the end

[DimmO]

http://www.corecodec.com/forums/index.php?topic=981.msg5695
it looks like coreavc are looking to work with the project to get it all legal and hunky-dorey.

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice fabrication there.

Re:This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge,

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, doing almost anything over freenet was nigh impossible. I'd wait until you could put up *anything* reliably before even thinking about something like version control.

I only got this to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft

[Bacon Bits]

What a load of crap - the GPL doesn't cover this in any way. If a lawyer did indeed give this advice, they should be fired. And FYI, GPL is NOT "GNU Protective License". Its GNU/GPL and stands for GNU General Public Licence.

Yeah, by that logic Microsoft's EULA grants them ownership over anything you create in Excel or Word. Or Outlook. Or SQL Server. Heck, pretty much any data file created on Windows suddenly becomes property of Microsoft.

Of course, I'd imagine that Intel has a similar EULA for the microcode on their processors....

Here's a hint: Input and output files are data files, not code. They have nothing to do at all with the licensing of the input or the output.

Solution

[prxp]

If they took down the project based on an unfair DMCA claim, just file a counter claim.

Re:Solution

[base3]

If only that did any good. The counterclaim permits, but does not force, the ISP to restore the content that was the subject of the takedown notice (although the ISP would have a safe harbor if it did). Not many ISPs are willing to "man up", and fold at any threat and would rather lose the business than deal with any potential legal hassles.

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft

[Anonymous Coward]

you are stupid and/or your lawyers lack basic reading comprehension skills. You should fire them. The GPL is no more 'intellectual theft' than proprietary licensing is 'user rights theft.' Not that stealing an 'idea' is possible. No one's forcing you to use the software. Don't like the license, use something else.

1. if you distribute binaries of modified gpl source, you must provide source diffs. if you're only using the software internally, you have no reason to do this.

2. you can compile whatever you want with gcc and distribute it under any license. For example, id software did this with the quake games. if you modify and DISTRIBUTE the compiler itself, then, yes you'd need to provide patches for the compiler, not your project. if your project links to libraries, make sure the libs are LGPL, which allows for dynamic linking without having the calling program be GPL.

3. token ring? people still use that?

Whatever happen to "Do No Evil"?

[Anonymous Coward]

after all, if Google can't afford lawyers, who can?

it sure seems like all corporations are corrupt

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft

[Anonymous Coward]

In case anybody has not seen this before, the above story could not actually have occurred (because it contains glaring legal and technical inaccuracies).

Some asshat needs to post this same story, verbatim, every few weeks.

You are incorrect about Canada, for now

[Phil Urich]

I forgive you for getting it wrong, since there keep being stories about "Canadian DMCA about to pass!!!!1" but as it turns out we've had really weak governments for the past while and thus in fact a full equivalent of the DMCA has yet to pass (unless I've missed something in the past month?). Key word being "yet", but it has never been a priority of the recent minority governments, nor have they quite had the time.

In terms of oppressive new legislation and expansion of corporate rights, Canada tends to lag behind the States just a tad, enough that in Canada people feel smug, all "oh, silly Americans. We would never trample the citizens in *our* country like that". And of course a Canadian from 10 years ago transported to today without having experienced the slowly rising boil would be aghast. But to degrees it's like that in many countries as of late.

"Free" trade agreements

[tepples]

The DMCA is a US only law. It is inapplicable in other countries. Until the United States executes two-party "free" trade agreements with foreign countries that require both parties to implement legislation identical to the DMCA. The United States has already done so with Australia.

Term of art vs. colloquialism

[tepples]

Google doesn't have "common carrier" status ("common carrier" is a legal term of art with a specific meaning). Plenty of words have both a "legal term of art" meaning and a more general informal meaning. As I understand it, the informal meaning of "common carrier" includes DMCA safe harbor status.

When code and input files are distributed together

[tepples]

Input and output files are data files, not code. They have nothing to do at all with the licensing of the input or the output. It's often the case that code designed to work with specific input files and input files designed to work with specific code are distributed together. This is the case with a program and its icons, or with a game program and its models/textures/maps/sounds. Neither the GPL nor the GPL FAQ makes it clear to me when the collective work of a program and its tightly coupled input files qualifies as an "aggregate".

Was it really copyright or circumvention?

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks - DMCA covers copyright, but also circumvention and reverse engineering stuff. I wonder if this complaint was specific to copyright?

Re:Was it really copyright or circumvention?

[ianpatt]

From the forum thread at CoreAVC discussing this, the founder of CoreAVC says "Again without going into all the details... this is mostly about reverse engineering without permission under the DMCA... by us giving Alan permission.... problem solved".

Without seeing the coreavc-for-linux code I can't say whether or not he had to reverse engineer anything about CoreAVC to get it working, but it doesn't seem like hooking up a DirectShow filter via a (relatively) standardized API would need anything like that. Since this claim was made under the DMCA, he would have had to be reverse engineering something related to copy protection. Perhaps there is some sort of product activation that had to be hacked around to get the codec working on a non-windows platform?

Re:Was it really copyright or circumvention?

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote the DCMA on reverse engineering:

(f) Reverse Engineering. -
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

This would seem to meet the statue on acceptable reverse engineering as defined by the DCMA. Assuming this is the case - I wonder if the EFF or others would be willing to take up the cause.

Idle Thoughts
PS. I would REALLY like to see an example made of these guys.

Re:Was it really copyright or circumvention?

[karmatic]

Since this claim was made under the DMCA, he would have had to be reverse engineering something related to copy protection. Perhaps there is some sort of product activation that had to be hacked around to get the codec working on a non-windows platform?

CoreAVC features copy protection. With CoreAVC for linux, they hard-code the windows product ID, and the serial # in a "Virtual" registry. Technically, it's a violation of the DMCA in the sense that it's potentially a "circumvention device". It would probably fit under the exemption for reverse-engineering for the purpose of creating interoperable software. That being said, the DMCA takedown was the result of an overzealous employee, and should not have been sent.

Re:Was it really copyright or circumvention?

[Anonymous Coward]

It still requires a valid key to work, the "hard coded value" is not valid and merely an example.

Re:Was it really copyright or circumvention?

[arkanes]

An overzealous employee? This was sent over the name of the company CEO, claiming to have been sent by him and it was in his name that the "under penalty of perjury" claim was made. Are there really employees there that are empowered to speak with his name, but make these kind of failures of judgment?

Re:Was it really copyright or circumvention?

[karmatic]

I am a Director for CoreCodec, Inc.

The CEO is, in fact, an employee, as am I.

As I stated elsewhere in this thread, the DMCA requires a statement that you have a "good faith" belief that the use is infringing, and certify "under penalty of perjury" that you represent the company holding the rights that are infringed.

CoreAVC for linux involved reverse-engineering of the copy protection in CoreAVC, and hard-coding serial numbers for Windows and CoreAVC in a virtual registry to bypass such copy protection. Now, the DMCA does offer an exemption for reverse-engineering for the purposes of creating interoperable software, provided such use isn't itself a "circumvention device". The CEO was under the impression that CoreAVC for linux was, in fact, violating the DMCA. Ultimately, it would be up to a court to decide. He had a good-faith belief this was infringing, and after the takedown was sent, he took steps to get them permission so it could be restored. Unfortunately, failure to protect your IP can make it difficult to enforce in other cases.

Whether or not it was technically a violation, the sending of the DMCA in this particular case was not appropriate. We have a very user-friendly approach to copyright law, and our "EULA" is designed around this philosophy. We believe in going after pirates, not customers that are using the software in unusual ways. Unfortunately, it's difficult to have a company where everyone has the knowledge of an IP attorney, especially given we have people in France, Hungary, the US, and other countries. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, state to state.

Parent is most useful post on this thread!

[ardle]

...followed by this one ;-)

Copywritten, or copyrighted?

[tepples]

Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

PROTIP: When you say "copywrite" (and the past participle "copywritten"), and you're not talking about advertisement text, that makes you look uneducated. Copyright statutes, such as Title 17, United States Code, consistently spell it "copyrighted", not "copywritten".

</national-socialist>

Message from one of the founders

[Anonymous Coward]

From http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1134322&postcount=3789
"Also before the Slashdot crowd jumps in here.... Last week we received a complaint noting a DMCA violation on the Google Code project for "CoreAVC for Linux' (MPlayer). Under the terms of the DMCA we 'had' to act on that complaint and asked Google to take the project down.

Now... did we 'want' to do it? No and I am working with Alan (the project creator) now on what the complaint addressed so we can have Google restore the project."

I don't understand the DMCA completely, why would corecodec 'have' to act on it? Aren't they the ones making the complaint?

There should be a mirror... somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Think its time to start up anew... My hero search engine giant is dead.... damn you google!!! I'll be burning my Open Source programs T-shirt tomorrow in front of the world... and post the video on ... yea, youtube!!

for once stand up and have some balls!!

nmy... only hiding my name.

Identical

[Chuck Chunder]

Is the Australian legislation really identical?

I ask because I can't recall any DMCA style take down (ie notification, counter notification etc) taking place here.

I think we've adopted certain aspects of the DMCA (such as banning circumvention of "effective technical measures") but I don't think it's reasonable to suggest we have adopted the DMCA completely.

There doesn't seem to be anything similar to the DMCA's takedown notices mentioned in the agreement

Re: Identical

[Ox0065]

Indeed there was that case where Sony tried to prevent chipping to circumvent 'copy protection' of games. My understanding is that it was ruled to be first and foremost illegal regional price fixing, not copy protection, & dismissed.
That was before the free trade agreement though, so... ...maybe we have adopted some of America's retarded distortions and inversions of IP law.

I want to see a law (case law would do) that means effective technical measures to prevent content producers from meeting their obligations under copyright law, mean they get no protection under copyright law.

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft

[JackieBrown]

If that is true, (which from all the fud spread about the GPL would not surpise me) you should take all your documents and go to a lawyer.

Especially if you can get someone to say they did not hire you based on your previous bosses' comments.

Re:Core codec is based on open source, they lie

[Barny]

Well, yeah, it was open source, and the copies they released with OSS license are likely still freely distributable under the license they released them under.

Using a different license and releasing new code doesn't suddenly make the old one less enforceable, an OSS should be able to use that code as long as the license permitted it, however the DMCA take-down implies they are using code from the closed source version.

Of course as a user of both CoreAVC for windows (the multi threaded h264 codec) and CorePlayer (the mobile phone media player) I hope they are doing this above board, would hate to think my dollars are funding a bunch of tools.

Assuming they are tools and this is all over the name, then this should be a Trademark dispute correct? And isn't the burden of proof on the the plaintiff and not the defendant?

You don't need to understand nothin

[Anonymous Coward]

You just need to bend over and take it like a girl

Mod parent up

[Barny]

Again without going into all the details (but your pushing ;-)... this is not about copyright (even thought the DMCA deals with that), this is mostly about reverse engineering without permission under the DMCA... by us giving Alan permission.... problem solved.

Seems there was evidence the writer of CoreAVC-for-linux reverse engineered their codec to get his patch working, they have since given him permission to do so, the DMCA take-down has been withdrawn.

A company not only defending their rights honestly, but then when malice is not shown backing off and giving their blessing to an OSS project, back off /. seems these are the good guys.

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why Parent has been modded "funny" when it actually is the plain and simple truth. The DMCA contains provisions that apply to reverse engineering.

From the minimal comments available, it appears as though there was some reverse engineering of the codec interface. And rather than playing it safe - the way that the people at ReactOS do - and using only "clean room" reverse engineering (ie: one man does the reverse engineering and provides documentation and someone else entirely implements the code to replicate the reverse engineered bit)

However, the people at CoreCodec have stated, in the article like to by the GP, that they are working to resolve the issues that precipitated the takedown notice. (In fact, one of their developers has stated, publicly, that he did not agree with a blind takedown notice)

In the end, though, it appears that the company issued the takedown because they did not understand copyright law. According to one of the people at the company, the takedown was issued as soon as they became aware of the infringement so they didn't lose their rights.

Re:Mod parent up

[Ngwenya]

Seems there was evidence the writer of CoreAVC-for-linux reverse engineered their codec to get his patch working, they have since given him permission to do so,

Wait a minute. Since when was reverse engineering illegal under the DMCA? Specifically, reverse engineering in order to promote interoperability.

It may well be that the DMCA produces such an effect - in which case this is an even more dreadful piece of legislation (just rename it the Competition Avoidance Act, and be done).

In the EU, the Software Directive explicitly allows reverse engineering for interoperability purposes (and any EULA conditions which stipulate otherwise are null and void).

It seems to me on first reading that the CoreAVC guys issued a DMCA without deciding that there was a prima facie case of infringement. If that is the case, then they should certainly face legal sanctions for perjury (doesn't a DMCA notice require that the declaration is made under penalty of perjury?).

It is telling that the CoreAVC boys also intend (and have always intended) to produce a version of their software under Linux, as BetaBoy said. So the motive for squashing something which could affect their marketing is clearly there.

A company not only defending their rights honestly

That remains to be seen. If they had no reason to suspect infringement, then such defence is not honest.

--Ng

Re:Mod parent up

[karmatic]

Seems there was evidence the writer of CoreAVC-for-linux reverse engineered their codec to get his patch working, they have since given him permission to do so, the DMCA take-down has been withdrawn.

Although it was reverse-engineered, US case law protects the right to reverse-engineer. The DMCA also offers specific exemptions for reverse-engineering for the purpose of creating interoperable software, provided such use is not for the purposes of a "circumvention device". The takedown was the result of an overzealous employee, and should not have happened.

An official statement will be coming out later today.

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft

[cwsulliv]

See! That's what Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have been telling us all along. This real life example proves it!

Re:This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge,

[Jarik_Tentsu]

You'd think rather than just trying to take down CoreAVC-for-Linux immediately, CoreCodec might try to release a Linux version of the codec first.

~Jarik

Re:When code and input files are distributed toget

[Bacon Bits]

Well, they can't license anything that they don't have copyright to. End users create the content, and thus own the copyright. It's not a derivative work (as defined by 17 U.S.C. 101).

Internal data files are exactly code. They're data objects in descriptive binary code necessary for the program to function, they're owned and copyrighted by the code author, and they've necessarily already been distributed as a component of the program under the same licensing restrictions. How do we know? Because they're in the same distribution that contains the source code and LICENSE.TXT.

This assertion can be extended to ridiculous lengths. Music would by copyrighted by microphone manufacturers. Television and photographs would be owned by camera manufacturers. Oh, except those tools were built from other tools, so cameras are all owned by chemical producers, which are all owned by oil companies, which are all owned by oil field owners, who are all middle eastern nations.

Copyright only applies to the work itself and derivative works (which has already been strictly defined). That's it.

Re:This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge,

[Lord Kano]

Paris doesn't need to take her panties off to blow some loser.

LK

DVCS

[SanityInAnarchy]

Use it like it was intended. Host your own official, public one if you like, but that can be over DSL, even.

Push the real traffic (patches, updates, etc) onto some mailing list, newsgroup, even forum -- those can be moved trivially, and your DVCS doesn't care what you're using, or can be adapted relatively quickly.

Freenet has been generally useless, as far as I can see. It's a very cool idea, but the only implementation I've ever seen is terminally fucking slow. Seriously, I browsed the Internet from a 200 mhz eMachine, running Windows 98, on a USB modem that lagged the system as badly as a floppy would (hey, remember Windows 98?) -- and that was faster than Freenet.

It's gotten better, but all of the above statements remain true. I'd consider Freenet if I really had something that needed that much hiding. For something like this, simple non-US development and synchronization via mailing list is enough, I think.

Re:DVCS

[SanityInAnarchy]

I should clarify this:

and that, then, was faster than Freenet was several years ago on my 1.8 ghz amd64.

Re:DVCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Mere ~200 KB of CoreAVCDecoder.ax for reverse engineering in Sweden or in Russia or in India is nothing complicated.

.ax --( disassemble )--> .dis --( handwrite )--> .asm --( assemble )--> .bin --( native run )--> WOW!!!

Re:This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge,

[karmatic]

Well, perhaps they should host on CoreCodec's CoreForge open-source hosting site instead.

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft

[xtracto]

(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
went smoothly.

Yeah, and my company was going to use Windows Vista Ultimate network server sql, but it did not supported WWMCCS and the RSTS file system.

What an utter crap is this Windows Vista...

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. If this is true, then how is it that businesses are using it right now? How is it that other companies are open-sourcing their products and making business models off of open-sourced software, even GPLd software. Apple owns the Common Unix Printing System (CUPS) now. It's GPLd. I guess that Apple isn't a 'real' business to you though. Just because you got bad legal advice, or you couldn't do what you wanted to with some GPLd source-code doesn't mean that everyone else is in your boat. Your point-of-view is just that... **YOUR** point-of-view. Many other are in situations that are different from yours.

I know it's all gotten bad when...

[Shoten]

I find myself relieved that at least this DMCA complaint actually has something to do with technical copyright controls, on some level at least. Not about a security vulnerability, or making printer cartridges, or a person's resume.

Something is fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

First off a quickie status update: The user "BetaBoy" on coreavc forums has stated that CoreAVC has revoked the DCMA notice, and granted the projects lead developer permission to continue the project.

He has also stated that this was not so much about copyright infringement, but reverse engineering the codec without permission.

The DCMA takedown notice (which was just today posted to Chill Effects) references "links to copyrighted code". Yet Betaboy makes reference to this being about "reverse engineering without permission" - not copyright.

As a user of CoreAVC for linux, and a frequent visitor to the google code site, I can attest to the fact that NO CoreAVC code was contained there. It was (and is) a simple DirectShow Filter Host optimized for use with the codec. Thats it.

The bottom line here is this is as clear a case of reverse engineering for interoperability as there ever was (an activity PROTECTED and ALLOWED by the DCMA), and the DCMA take down notice was a perjured statement by not claiming illegal reverse engineering, but instead claiming copyrighted code.

The only good thing in this mess is the company did the right thing and apologised. The downside is they only did so after perjuring themselves, misusing the DCMA, and generally making an ass of themselves.

Re:Something is fishy

[BLKMGK]

Just about the most informative post in this thread! Finally someone who USED the software has stepped forward and answered the question the takedown raised - which is did the code contain anything from CoreAVC? Apparently not so the takedown was bogus. Reverse Engineering for interoperability is allowed, breaking content protection less so if the primary reason for doing it is to pirate the software. Interesting that CoreAVC backed off although the "we've allowed them" part is crap. Sadly the project I'm most interested in, XBMC on Linux, won't use this code anyway. However they DID take the CABAC patches that allowed for multithreaded decoding of H.264 so we be rocking :-)

Re:Something is fishy

[karmatic]

I am a Director for CoreCodec, Inc.

Technically, this project didn't contain CoreAVC code. It did, however, break the copy protection in such a way that it was possibly a "circumvention device" under the DMCA. CoreAVC for linux could be copied to any of a number of computers without the copy protection kicking in.

That being said, we have a corporate policy of being Anti-EULA, and Pro-End User. The DMCA takedown was done in good faith, but it was slightly excessive. The employee who sent the takedown (the CEO) went through the process of granting permission after the takedown, not because of any bad publicity, but rather because he felt it was technically illegal, but not morally objectionable.

There were better ways to handle this particular case, but there was no fraud, deceit, bad faith, or any attempt to shut down alternative uses of our software. We host (and produce) open-source code, and have absolutely no problem with our customers using their purchased software as they desire, providing they aren't distributing more copies than they purchased, or distributing modified versions of our (non-open-source) code.

FWIW, we have a Linux version in the works - we have no objection to Linux, or even to our customers making the Windows version working on Linux. They are, after all, still our customers.

Re:Something is fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess... You are "LinuxForever."

While I agree with nearly everything you said, you should really refer to it as DMCA (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). If for no other reason than to prevent people from unmasking you by characterizing your mistakes.

Re:Something is fishy

[Wavicle]

You know, I really want to believe this, but there are some nagging issues which make me believe that this was, at best, an irrational act by someone acting out of anger and at worst - well something worse. In essence, I am having a hard time believing your argument that there was no bad faith.

1. The DMCA take down notice only referenced a single law in the United States Code - Specifically Title 17 Section 512; the safe harbor take down clause. There is no safe harbor clause for taking down a circumvention device. "This correspondence is a formal takedown notice being sent to you pursuant to Tile 17 United States Code Section 512, et seq."

2. The reasons in the in the DMCA take down specifically stated that something was downloaded and verified to be infringing. "We have directly verified by downloading the file from the Site provided by Google Inc. that the file does include CoreCodec's copyrighted Software."

3. The reasons for the take down have evolved, as anyone following the thread can see. First it was copyright, then it was reverse engineering without permission "this is not about copyright (even thought the DMCA deals with that), this is mostly about reverse engineering without permission under the DMCA", then it was anti-circumvention (actually your post was the first I've read of that and is indeed a strange argument), then it was oops, sorry about that!

4. There are repeated references to consulting with counsel and having to file the take down quickly to avoid losing rights to your IP "Under the terms of the DMCA we 'had' to act on that complaint and asked Google to take the project down."... If this was a trademark issue, that is true. It strains credulity that an actual lawyer would confuse this issue.

From the outside looking in (I don't use CoreAVC) it really looks to me like spin doctoring. Why has every new justification contradicted the take down notice?

Re:When code and input files are distributed toget

[arkanes]

In the past, it wasn't uncommon for EULAs on compilers and other content creation tools to claim that stuff produced with it was derivative. After all, there's a lot of stuff besides what you wrote in a word document, or in a compiled executable. I don't know that there's ever been any sort of legal case that created a boundary here, it's mainly been market pressure that's ensured that tool creators stopped making these claims or have elected not to pursue them.

Re:When code and input files are distributed toget

[arkanes]

Replying to parent, not myself - OP (which was modded down below my threshold when I posted) is an old, old troll that gets posted at least once in any thread even remotely relating to OSS and licensing. It's nice that there was some moderately interesting conversation that came out of it, though.

Re:Core codec is based on open source, they lie

[TheRaven64]

As a user of the codec, perhaps you could explain why it's better than x264? If people are willing to jump through hoops to get an unsupported, closed, binary running on *NIX then it must have some advantages, but it's not obvious what these are to someone who hadn't heard of this project until reading the summary.

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft

[TheRaven64]

You are responding to a troll, and you are wrong. The GPL does require code generated by GCC to be GPL'd since any compiler inserts portions of itself into the output making the output a derived work of the compiler. This is why GCC is not licensed under the GPL, it is licensed under the GPL with a special exemption for code compiled with GCC but not including any GCC code other than that inserted by the compilation process.

They backtracked

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue has been resolved, see the corecodec forum thread.

I am the author of CoreAVC for Linux.
Regardless of the cause, CoreCodec and I have resolved the conflict, and CoreAVC-for-Linux should be back online soon. In addition, the patches for 1.7.0 are ready to go, and Linux users should see a nice performance improvement on Dual-core machines (compared to 1.5.0) once it is available.

dixit anisota)

The juicy bits of the discussion
* CoreCodec representative admits they themselves have had a Linux port of CoreAVC ready for TWO YEARS but didn't release it for tactical reasons
* CoreCodec representative admits "this is not about copyright" although they say so in the takedown notice, a legal document

In the end the counsels advise on what we were to do was out of scope (including copyright) when we looked at all the great feedback everyone has provided us. The DMCA does allow for reverese engineering for compatibilty purposes and hence in the end no matter what the 'other points' are the DMCA takedown request was wrongly sent.

Alan has been great about this and we are now working with him now on making his new version compatible with CoreAVC v1.7.

dixit BetaBoy (CoreCodec)

Hilarious.

on right side

[shentino]

At least the "Goog" took it down under protest, posted a link to chilling effects, and included a link on how to protect your rights.

Re:This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge,

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone on a project I worked with obtained the beta of the game we wrote an emulator for and decided it would be a good idea to make a new project on sourceforge and have sourceforge host the surreptitiously obtained files (clearly a copyright violation) and sourceforge received a DMCA takedown notice from the company in question. If anything they were giving our side too much pull rather than the other way around as even a casual look would show that our side was totally in the wrong. However, this was years ago and I don't think I have any copies of the emails anymore.

Betaboy is a joke HE is "COUNCEL"

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.corecodec.com/forums/index.php?topic=981.msg5780

"In the end the counsels advise on what we were to do..."

This is from a convicted liar (Beatboy). There is no "counsels". He is lying. Making it up. Read this thread to see what a fucking liar this jerk is.

Re:Betaboy is a joke HE is "COUNCEL"

[reiisi]

Thanks, Mr/s. AC, for the link to the thread on their forums.

(I'm not so critical of betaboy. It kind of looks to me like he just has a little trouble communicating, lacks some experience with the law and with understanding what is still, to him, technical legalese, something which is not all that uncommon among geeks, especially young geeks.

Admitted, some geeks follow the siren call down the marketing path, like the Bill & Steve Show, but this does not seem to be the case here.)

(Oh, and for those of us still puzzled by the spelling challenge, I think that "counsel's advice" seems to be what he was trying to say, whether he was talking about pro se or getting advice from his law student roommate or just trying to appear like he could afford more legal help than he can or whatever.)

Re:Betaboy is a joke HE is "COUNCEL"

[Anonymous Coward]

Betaboy does that a lot. He says things like "has to pass through legal", and other such crap. Come to think of it, many a thread in the forum has words like counsel or legal being used. I suppose most would say lawyer, but the guy is a nut job. I would not be surprised if he had a brain tumor, he is so wacko. Not just internet wacko, but screwed up in the head wacko.

Re:Core codec is based on open source, they lie

[Frenchman113]

This here is what we call a logical fallacy. You propose a comparison between two things that are not alike and ask us to determine which is better. In this case, no comparison exists because CoreAVC is a decoder and x264 is an encoder. Maybe you should read a little bit on what each are? Like what x264 and CoreAVC are?

Now, assuming that you meant to ask "what advantage does CoreAVC hold over other (free) decoders such as FFMPEG?", the answer is as follows:
CoreAVC is much faster in single-threaded operation than FFmpeg, especially in the deblocking routines. It supports interlaced H.264 which FFmpeg did not until recently support. It has much more efficient multi-threaded routines than FFmpeg. All of these matters because 1920x1080i/p H.264 videos such as HDTV broadcasts in some countries as well as Blu-Ray/HD-DVDs are being increasingly common. In order to play these videos using FFmpeg, one would need something like a 3GHz Core 2 Quad whereas a much lower-clocked Core 2 Duo is sufficient with CoreAVC.

CEO = betaboy

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuff said on "CEO" claim. And it's about as Inc. as my toosh. This is a fly-by-night outfight that lies, cheats, steals, and covers it up as best he (betaboy) can. Only thing is, he's an idiot that lies so much he can't keep it straight himself. Those that uncover this are banned and forum threads deleted. Inc.? Webpage cites registered trademark status but nowhere is such a trademark registered. Webpage cites patents pending, but patents pending on what? It's all a sham based on previously-done but modified open source projects.

Re:CEO = betaboy

[karmatic]

Although you are an anonymous coward, I am still going to respond. Perhaps I'm feeding a troll here, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

For the record, my name is Carlos Averett. I'm not particularly hard to find - I used to go by "cyt0plas" here and on other sites. I have anti-EULA posts going back several years.

Nuff said on "CEO" claim. And it's about as Inc. as my toosh.
The CEO, "betaboy", as you put it, is Dan Marlin. I'm sorry if his handle isn't "manly" enough for you. As for the ",Inc." part, we are incorporated. It is part of the legal name, and serves to identify that this is a legal entity, and that it is a corporation (as opposed to, for example, an LLC.)

This is a fly-by-night outfight that lies, cheats, steals, and covers it up as best he (betaboy) can.
This is a strange claim to make - our customers come by the web site, and buy our products. Our products do what they claim to do, and Do them very well. We have never refused to give a refund. If selling software is "theft", I guess we stand guilty.

As for the "fly-by-night" aspect, we have multimedia software (written by us) for PalmOS, Symbian, Linux, OS X, Windows CE/Mobile, and Windows NT2+. We run on ARM, MIPS, x86, x64. This is the result of years and years of in-house development.

Only thing is, he's an idiot that lies so much he can't keep it straight himself.
We're a company, and made up of a number of different people. Sometimes, this leads to differences of opinion and/or policy. It happens. Since I am not, for example, Dan Marlin, you shouldn't really be surprised if he says different things than me. If you really don't believe it, our "Contact US" page is at http://www.corecodec.com/contact-us.html . Heck, we can set up a conference call.

Those that uncover this are banned and forum threads deleted.
Disjointed, irrelevant, factually incorrect threads (such as this one) get deleted in our forums. A couple of Google searches show your post to be utterly false. So, don't be surprised when we delete threads like this from our forums. It's hardly some "mass censorship" on our part when we delete posts by trolls.

Webpage cites registered trademark status but nowhere is such a trademark registered.
Well, this one is bogus. Check Tess if you don't believe me. Do an advanced search for "CoreCodec". We currently hold trademarks on Matroska, CoreAVC, CoreCodec, BetaPlayer, CorePlayer, CorePhone, CoreOS, and the CoreCodec logo.

It's all a sham based on previously-done but modified open source projects.
We wrote players. The (mobile) players originally used open-source decoders, and were released as open-source. The decoders were slow.

We have some phenomenal developers, and developers (unsurprisingly) want to be paid. Good developers want to be paid well. It happens, and that's a good thing. So, we re-did the decoders, removed all the open-source code, paid all the patent fees, and put out a legal player that can be used by companies, and in products. It's more efficient than any other software product, and often faster than hardware solutions on the same device (Google "CoreAVC Benchmarks") if you don't believe me.

Some of our projects are still open-source (Matroska, for example), and we are in the process of reworking and releasing several of our internal projects (Enterprise-grade Certificate Authority) as open-source. I make no apologies for wanting to pay the developers well - they certainly earn it. This does take money, and selling software is a reasonable way to earn it.

"CEO" is betaboy

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuff said on "CEO" claim. And it's about as Inc. as my toosh. This is a fly-by-night outfight that lies, cheats, steals, and covers it up as best he (betaboy) can. Only thing is, he's an idiot that lies so much he can't keep it straight himself. Those that uncover this are banned and forum threads deleted. Inc.? Webpage cites registered trademark status but nowhere is such a trademark registered. Webpage cites patents pending, but patents pending on what? It's all a sham based on previously-done but modified open source projects.

And you who claim to be "director", you have a real name?

Re:"CEO" is betaboy

[karmatic]

Nuff said on "CEO" claim. And it's about as Inc. as my toosh. This is a fly-by-night outfight that lies, cheats, steals, and covers it up as best he (betaboy) can. Only thing is, he's an idiot that lies so much he can't keep it straight himself. Those that uncover this are banned and forum threads deleted. Inc.? Webpage cites registered trademark status but nowhere is such a trademark registered. Webpage cites patents pending, but patents pending on what? It's all a sham based on previously-done but modified open source projects.

And you who claim to be "director", you have a real name?

It would appear that you're re-posting the same troll, so I'm going to link to my answer to the last one. Yes, I have a name - it's in the post.

Solution, while coving their behinds.

[Defectuous]

Simple Solution in my eyes, would be take it down (for now), but provide links on how to dispute it. This way Google, is yes taking it down, but also providing the developer(s) steps to get his/her code back up. I see this as a "do no evil" mentality. While covering their own legal behinds.

Re:Core codec is based on open source, they lie

[TheRaven64]

Ah, sorry, I thought x264 was the decoder. Irrespective of this, I am slightly puzzled by your CPU usage claims. I have a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo (the low-power mobile version) in my laptop, and VLC is able to play 1080p H.264 with under 50% CPU usage (QuickTime uses a shade over 60%, but has slightly better visual quality).

Why call Dan Marlin "overzelous employee" when

[Anonymous Coward]

Why call Dan Marlin (betaboy) an "overzelous employee" when his signature reads, "Corecodec Founder" ? Sooo many lies I could not begin to count them. The phone number is answered by a machine. Is it in Dan's basement ? In what state is this incorporated ? What trademarks are registered ? Patents are pending for what ? How many advertised "features" carry a */**/*** next to them saying "not now, some time in the future", and have for years ? Why do some many "I am disappointed in ..." threads appear in the forum but get deleted ? Why does betaboy write "refunds are given months after purchase" when no one ever replies to refunds ? It's al just a continuous stream of lies, built on previoiusly-existing open source code that has been modified, and now sold.

Just an obvious one, but oh so typical:

Why call Dan Marlin (betaboy) an "overzelous employee" when his signature reads, "Corecodec Founder" ?

Re:Why call Dan Marlin "overzelous employee" when

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea whether or not he acted in good faith, but you are certainly a troll.

The phone number is answered by a machine. Is it in Dan's basement ?

How is this a lie and not just your random speculation?

In what state is this incorporated ?

Why can't you look that up yourself? What difference does the state make?

What trademarks are registered ?

He already mentioned them, and told you how to look them up at the USPTO website.

Why call Dan Marlin (betaboy) an "overzelous employee" when his signature reads, "Corecodec Founder" ?

Maybe when you grow up and experience actual business, you will find out that founders usually are employees. Most founders want to be paid a salary, you know.

Re:Why call Dan Marlin "overzelous employee" when

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked through and saw some points answered, but the others? Patents pending is on the website, which in itself is odd since I've never seen that before on a website page, but then not replying to the query was telling. From my perusal, corecode does seem like a couple or few guys who got together with some open source code and decided to form a business. From the looks of what is in their boards it has its work cut out for it. I give it another year before it goes tits up!

It's Wyoming, by the way. I don't know of any/many businesses incorporated in Wyoming but it may have low tax. The pretend attoney is kind of sad, but on the internet it's easy.

Re:Why call Dan Marlin "overzelous employee" when

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents pending is on the website, which in itself is odd since I've never seen that before on a website page

7,720,000 hits. It's not odd, you're just inventing reasons to be suspicious because you can't find any legitimate ones.

then not replying to the query was telling.

Sure is. You know what it tells me? That he's fed up of feeding trolls.

From my perusal, corecode does seem like a couple or few guys who got together with some open source code and decided to form a business.

And? I don't see what you are getting so outraged about. You do realise that "a few guys who got together" is how practically all companies start? And that using open-source to do so is perfectly fine?

I give it another year before it goes tits up!

Remember, at one point, Google were just a couple of student who got together with some open-source software, and then went on to patent stuff they came up with themselves. If you applied your criticism equally, you'd be calling a great many legitimate people scammers for no good reason.

It's Wyoming, by the way. I don't know of any/many businesses incorporated in Wyoming but it may have low tax.

Now look at you. You're casting aspersions about an entire state because you are desperate to believe there's something fishy about their incorporation.

The pretend attoney is kind of sad

It's "attorney", and what makes you think they are pretending?

Now, given that you have so many questions of your own, turnabout is fair play - answer one yourself. Why the grudge against them? Because it's obvious for everybody to see that you have an axe to grind specifically with them.

Re:Why call Dan Marlin "overzelous employee" when

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been over three years and I think if anything were going to happen it already would have. Video is very mainstream now and anyone can find a player already built in. Device makers have proven technology available to them, not the way-buggy and woefully incomplete stuff these guys have. I don't see how this can be around for much longer, unless they are getting paid in cc "stock", because there's no way they get much income. Look at the targets: 1) Apple iPhone? Apple won't allow media players on its iPhone but these guys are making one anyway. That's an act of desperation. 2) Palm? Palm OS has been dead for years. The only viable market is Windows, and not Mobile, which is ridiculous to even consider as a video platform: 2.5-inch screen, not to mention a very small battery that is needed for the phone. Even porn addicts would pass (not speaking as one).

Re:Why call Dan Marlin "overzelous employee" when

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked through and saw some points answered, but the others? Not replying to the queries was telling.

Why call Dan Marlin "overzelous employee" when

[Anonymous Coward]

Sooo many lies I could not begin to count them. The phone number is answered by a machine. Is it in Dan's basement ? In what state is this incorporated ? What trademarks are registered ? Patents are pending for what ? How many advertised "features" carry a */**/*** next to them saying "not now, some time in the future", and have for years ? Why do some many "I am disappointed in ..." threads appear in the forum but get deleted ? Why does betaboy write "refunds are given months after purchase" when no one ever replies to refunds ? It's al just a continuous stream of lies, built on previoiusly-existing open source code that has been modified, and now sold.

Just an obvious one, but oh so typical:

Why call Dan Marlin (betaboy) an "overzelous employee" when his signature reads, "Corecodec Founder" ?

Copyrighted software

[aafuss]

Apparently the DMCA compliant states that CoreAVC did include copyrighted software: "We have directly verified by downloading the file from the Site provided by Google Inc. that the file does include CoreCodec's copyrighted Software."

Re:Copyrighted software

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like a fucking liar to me alright

Google changed its mind

[ThinkTwice]

It appears Google has changed its mind: "http://code.google.com/p/coreavc-for-linux/downloads/list"

Google had no choice

[JSBiff]

If you want to protest something, protest the poorly conceived DMCA which was enacted by a legislature that is in the pockets of certain groups of copyright holders. The DMCA requires hosting providers like Google to take downn material upon receiving a takedown letter. It's sad, really, that a law gives the power to the accuser to force legal 'remedies' to be taken against the accused, *simply* based on the word of the accuser (I guess when it comes to copyright, you're guilty until proven innocent).

File a counter notice - and go for vacations :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi

If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days [after beeing notified about counter-notice], the service provider is then required to restore the material

So, yes, go on and file counter-notice and go away for two weeks vacations. After 14 days will pass, then your content will be restored back to life.