Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Pulls Open Source CoreAVC Project Over DMCA Complaint

Posted by timothy on from the not-like-google-has-much-choice dept.

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.)

20 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Yes.. by Svenne · · Score: 2, Informative

    You appear to have missed this sentence:

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

    --

    Slagborr
    1. Re:Yes.. by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.
      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  2. Re:File a counter notice by RedWizzard · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:File a counter notice by RedWizzard · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  4. Re:I figured this might happen. by Comsn · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  5. maybe it'll turn out all OK in the end by DimmO · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:Where Else? by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.)
  7. Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:Torrent? by jlarocco · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Maybe not
  9. Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    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.

  10. Re:File a counter notice by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).
  11. Message from one of the founders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    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?

  12. Re:Where Else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    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.

  13. Re:Core codec is based on open source, they lie by Barny · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  14. Re:Was it really copyright or circumvention? by ianpatt · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?

  15. Mod parent up by Barny · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    --
    ...
    /me sighs
    1. Re:Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Mod parent up by karmatic · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  16. Re:File a counter notice by RedWizzard · · Score: 2, Informative

    Did you mean sue the party who served the notice? Yes.
  17. Re:I figured this might happen. by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!