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.)

9 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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.
  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.)
  6. 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.
  7. 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).
  8. 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 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.