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

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

[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: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

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: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: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: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: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?

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

[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.