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."
And CoreCodec. The company that _seriously_ demanded online activation for a $10 video codec. Including dongeling it to your current hardware config.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
If I were the ones working on the project, I'd make sure I would not host it on Google.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm okay with that. I've long ago given up worrying about the intentions of companies. As long as the result is one I like, then I'm happy.
Can anyone tell me why you would possibly want to plug CoreAVC into MPlayer and Xine or GStreamer based applications when these already have native H.264 playback?
For decoding, ffmpeg (Which has a code base used throughout a tonne of the Free Software world) already has a decent decoder, and for encoding we have x264 (Developed by the folks behind VLC)...
I know that CoreAVC claims to be super optimised, but is it really that much better? I have always assumed that they were just milking those Windows users that didn't know of ffdshow.
Judging by nothing other than his posts to the Corecodec forums, Dan Marlin is an arrogant fuckwad who knows nothing about the law or copyright, and he DESERVES to be prosecuted for his ILLEGAL DMCA takedown notice.
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?
Scientology critics?
If one of the party was not in good faith - well, they can be smacked down very hard quite easily.
Inconceivable!
It looks like CoreCodec just discovered they were not actually in good faith and are doing damage control.
I think that's what they said, yes. Their message is basically "we fucked up, sorry, we're making sure we can't fuck up that way again".
Voluntarily admitting they fucked up when they fuck up, let alone bothering to figure out how they can avoid fucking up again, is unfortunately rare enough for organizations that it's actually impressive to see one do it without having to be dragged through a lawsuit first. I don't think you're giving them enough credit.
So which is it? Is it "sorry we did this", or "sorry we got caught?"
What, because Google complied with a legally worded (albeit faulty) DMCA takedown notice, as they are legally obliged to do?
IIRC, it's down to the project owner to then turn around and say "There's nothing the matter with it, you shouldn't have been served the takedown notice". Google is only a middleman here.
But the real question is, is there any such thing as bad publicity?
This whole drama seems manufactured to get attention for another *yawn* codec.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
You don't know the whole of it.
The DMCA wasn't intended to be used for this situation. It just gets used that way.
There was no copyright being broken.
There was no circumvention of protection measures.
However, it was used to pull down a site and a project for a time- for no other reason than a company stating that either were going on.
Sure, it's working as it's intended- but it's not what should be allowed. You shouldn't have the ability to willy-nilly do things like this and then maybe, just maybe, face the music of your actions after the fact after you've screwed up like this. Other things in the civil space typically require an injunction which takes time and usually requires more actual effort on the part of the party asking for it to get things to stop. With the DMCA, you don't need any of that crap- not even a Judge to determine if you're even full of crap or not. With the DMCA, you get to send a legal looking, nasty letter filed with a court and sent to the people in question, stating under of penalty of perjury that this is so and that they have to remove it or face possibly being held actionable along with the "infringing party". If you're wrong with the old way, you could face sanctions amongst other things- with the DMCA, it's really cheap in comparison.
Sure, it's working as "intended"- but the problem is, that "as intended" is the very problem everyone's up in arms about. There's less legal consequences for a screwup of this nature. There's less consequences for someone going around and doing it for things like printer cartridges where the company's trying to use it to keep people from refilling the expensive ink on them- and to keep buying the wasteful expensive ink cartridges. The DMCA's busted.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
How could he have believed ANYTHING? He didn't verify whether or not it was an infringing item or if it breached a circumvention measure. This isn't a mistake of a nature that would have been viewed kindly by a Court in the old way of doing things.
If you don't know if it does or not, you're taking a 50-50 chance on it being perjury or not.
In and of itself, that's something that'd get you in trouble in a Court if it was anything other than this stupid crap, which shouldn't be around in the first place.
Before the DMCA, you had to file an infringement case, go before a Judge in a hearing on the matter, and get an injunction to get the same effect. With the DMCA, they don't have to bother with that. With the DMCA, they only have to send takedown letters to the appropriate parties to get a result. There's no Judge in the middle, determining whether they, in fact, have a case or not- they don't even have to face any music for being wrong and doing it frivolously unless the person they do it to is flush with cash and pursues the counter hard. With the old way, you had to go to the trouble of filing a suit- and if you got it wrong, there was decent chances of the lawyer and the plaintiff being sanctioned for the sillybuggers we see these days.
There's a reason the stuff was the way it was before the DMCA. Congress was foolishly led to believe that the rights holders with standing needed a "quicker" way of fixing things and to treat ways of circumventing "protections" as criminal acts.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You're absolutely right. Hang them out to dry as an example to others.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!