Slashdot Mirror
CoreCodec Apologizes For CoreAVC Takedown
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "In a follow-up to the previous story, CoreCodec has apologized for the incorrect DMCA Takedown notice that took the CoreAVC project offline. There's also a public statement by co-founder Dan Marlin saying in part, 'I'd like to publicly apologize to Alan [CoreAVC project lead] for the disconnect between him and us as well as the disruption to the project as there was no ill will intended and we were already working on a resolution with him before this went public.' They've also created a new policy for sending out DMCA Takedown notices, so that they won't misuse them in the future."
It's already back up, you know. http://code.google.com/p/coreavc-for-linux/
I read about this deal yesterday, and yes, it appears that the codec is much better than what's available on Linus right now. It's apparently using hardware acceleration and multi-threaded programming. Ffdshow is supposed to come out with those features soon, though.
Put identity in the browser.
Well, when decoding a 1920x1080 (1080p) image on a little bitty dual core AMD machine used as a media centre, you will see why :)
The ffmpeg decoder is awesome, it is a reference quality codec, it renders EVERY frame as good as it possibly can... which is not really how you want video, you want a usable frame rate FIRST.
As a customer of CoreCodec (both the windows h.264 multi threaded codec AND the symbian media player) I am glad its all sorted.
...
At least this segment of it, I'm not sure what else it contains.
1. If you post material online, someone can send a DMCA notice and have it instantly taken down. They must though state that legally and in good faith they have strong reason to believe they are copyright owners.
2. If you challenge it, you send a DMCA counternotice and the material is put back up. You must though state that legally and in good faith you either are the copyrightholder or its in public domain. By doing this you also have to reveal your name. Obviously if you are not willing to reveal your name, you can't counternotice.
(the only potential misuse I could see is if people have a good reason to post anonymously, like whistleblowers - anyone know of any use like that? Obviously this would however confirm that any material taken down is not falsified or the company could not claim copyright)
3. If both parties are in good faith, then obviously let the lawsuits commence. If one of the party was not in good faith - well, they can be smacked down very hard quite easily. It looks like CoreCodec just discovered they were not actually in good faith and are doing damage control.
CoreAVC is incredibly fast; a machine which could barely handle 720p with libavcodec can probably manage two decode two 1080p videos at once. It also tends to introduce a lot of artifacting errors, but if you couldn't play the video at all it's probably an improvement. Personally I've just been confused as of late after installing Linux on this laptop. On windows libavcodec would decode 1080p h264 video no problem, but in linux mplayer fails miserably on 720p videos..
I have a 3-4 years old machine (not real multiprocessor, just hyperthreading, 1G memory).
When i play HD movies, VLC works perfectly on my Windows, Mplayer playback is jerky.
I prefer not to boot into Windows, but sometimes i have to.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
CoreAVC is by _far_ the fastest H.264 software decoder on the planet. Something like twice as fast as the nearest competitor.
Yes, it is/was bad. It took time rather a long time (months) to get the whole process of activation more or less working. In the mean time, people were waiting for bugfixes and promised features, not understanding why it all was taking so long. Perhaps you can still get a glimpse of it all on the forums. As for development-costs, I don't actually think you can earn them this way. Some people will pay, most people will just try an alternative if paying/activating is too complicated. OEM Licensing is probably a better way to (a route which they also have taken) Last, codec is $14,95. There is a cheaper version, but that has no Interlace support among others, so pretty much useless in many circumstances.
It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
OK, not sure I agree with the wording...
But in case you are wondering, click on the link about Dan Marlin's response and read part of the thread where he (BetaBoy) responds to his customers.
Judge for yourself what kind of person he is...
After that, it's up to the courts, if either party wants to take it that far.
There are even sites out there to generate your own DMCA counterclaim quick and fast.
One such is: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html or here: http://www.ucmo.edu/dmca/counter.html
People unfortunately probably go to lawyers first, a little bit of knowledge goes a long way.
However, DMCA misuse is something that can be sued for and withdrawing the already DMCA'd request doesn't lift that vulnerability in court...there is a provision for DMCA misuse.
No, the problem is that the codec is too good. That is, the codec favors correctness and quality over speed, where CoreAVC and many other codecs take shortcuts to improve the framerate at the expense of quality and correctness.
Site owners can sue too. That is, unless when you sign up for hosting you agree that your site can be taken down for any reason. Except that the DMCA is specifically worded to screw Google and other hosting companies over if they don't take a "Shutdown Site Now, Think Later" position. I.e., if the DMCA complaints turn out to be true, and Google didn't shutdown first and think later, Google becomes liable for everything.
Brilliantly worded bit of kit there. It's like an anti-terrorism law that states "If you don't make a citizen's arrest, and it turns out that random Arabic/Mexican/Just-Not-White-Enough chap really is evil, you're liable for anything he does cause you COULD have stopped him."
Absolutely stupid idea, but hey, it's ""Intellectual Property" Law", leave your brain at the door.
So according to this, the CEO has legally stated that his company downloaded the software and confirmed the violation. But today, he says it was just an overzealous legal department, and no such download happened. In that case, he signed a letter making legal statements that he knew were false.
If I ran this project, I would not be satisfied by an apology posted in a forum. They sent a legal statement and that requires a legal reply. I would continue as the DMCA stipulates, stating that the project does not infringe. I think I'd also be looking for a few lawyers to get fired. And the CEO needs to be quaking in his boots with the fact that his signature is on a legal notice that is a complete lie.
Why so harsh? They apologized, right? Because these stories happen all the time and I'm sick of companies getting away with it. If you send a legally binding letter with your signature on it, forcing someone to take down their web site, invoking a legal process - then you damn well better be sure that you were in the right. If we let this go, then the procedure becomes:
1. Company sends take down notice
2. Alleged infringer has to prove that they aren't infringing
3. Company allows them to put the project back up
That's not fair. That means any corporation can take down any site, any time, anywhere, with no fear of legal reprisal. That's not how the DMCA works and we need to stop them from using it that way. The DMCA is not carte-blanche to shut down web sites.
> That is, the codec favors correctness and quality over speed
For H.264 there is no such choice. H.264 mandates _bit exact_ decoding. If it decodes to something different, it is not a H.264 decoder (strictly speaking). But apart from that, libavcodec/MPlayer/... have all the options to enable that kind of invalid hacks (fast, skiploopfilter,...), they just are disabled by default.
Umm, I'm pretty sure it's because that's how the DMCA is written. I believe they are obligated under the law to respect a DMCA take down notice. This is a good example of how flawed the DMCA is - it puts the burden of proof on the accused. Of course, in order for a DMCA take down notice to be valid it has to be signed "under penalty of perjury" so if you do file an invalid DMCA take down notice then you've opened yourself up to some serious liability.
Bradley Holt
Bradley Holt
Actually, it's specifically worded to help Google... before the DMCA, Google would have been liable for intellectual property suits for anything they provided. The "safe harbor" provisions were a step forward for service providers. If you want something specifically worded to screw Google, look at the claim that Viacom has against YouTube, claiming that it's unfair they have to use the DMCA takedown notices for each infringing video.
The process is a good one, and it removes the need to make a judgment about whether or not the material infringes from the hosting provider. If a copyright holder files a takedown notice, you take the thing down. If the user responsible wants to claim there's no violation, you put the thing back up. If you're *really* certain there's no violation as the service provider, you keep it up and brace for lawsuit.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
The bit that has the purjury penaltiy is strictly a statement saying that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright which is allegedly being infringed. This provides for damages against me for filing a takedown notice against Slashdot for one of your comments. It does not provide damages against me for filing a false notice, as long as its my work (or my client's) that I'm claiming was infringed.
Why does a takedown notice get more respect than the site owner? Because a person sending such a notice seems more sue-happy than the site owner?
Because that's the law. Yes, it's stupid. It's a stupid law.
My understanding of the process is the site owner files a counter notice and the ISP is obliged to put the site back up. It is then up to the courts to decide who committed perjury.
I don't care why you're posting AC
And do you MAKE a library for use in Linux?
No.
So it is for interoperability.
But then either you knew that and therefore lied or didn't check in which case Svartalf's point is correct.