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.)

26 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge, &a by base3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  2. File a counter notice by RedWizzard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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 BobPaul · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:File a counter notice by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    4. Re:File a counter notice by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
  3. Where Else? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Where Else? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:Where Else? by BobPaul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Where Else? by poetmatt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    4. 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.)
  4. Re:This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  5. I figured this might happen. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. 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

    2. Re:I figured this might happen. by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  6. Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name by hcmtnbiker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
    1. Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name by arkanes · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name by belmolis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Interesting


      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?
  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. "Free" trade agreements by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  10. 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.