Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Adobe Uses DMCA On Protocol It Promised To Open

Posted by kdawson on from the by-some-definitions-of-open dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Despite promising in January to open RTMP, Adobe has issued a DMCA take down request for an open source implementation of the protocol. The former SourceForge project page for rtmpdump now reports 'Invalid Project.' rtmpdump has been used in tools such as get_iplayer and get-flash-videos. Adobe is no stranger to the DMCA, having previously used it against Dmitry Sklyarov."

56 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Copyright law? by pieterh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How can a copyright law be used to take down a protocol implementation? What copyrights were infringed? This would normally fall under patent law.

    --
    My blog
    1. Re:Copyright law? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      MySQL have in the past (not sure about their current stance on it) said that any application implementing the MySQL client protocol is required to either have a commercial license, or be licensed under the GPL as they consider the protocol itself to be part of MySQL and thus under copyright.

    2. Re:Copyright law? by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

      How can a copyright law be used to take down a protocol implementation?

      Ask The Tetris Company. It thinks it owns the exclusive right to make video games that incorporate falling shapes made of four square segments.

    3. Re:Copyright law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How can a copyright law be used to take down a protocol implementation? What copyrights were infringed? This would normally fall under patent law.

      The DMCA is broken up into parts. The second part talks about "anti-circumvention". When a person attempts to circumvent a "technical protection measure" this is considered to be a violation of the DMCA.

      With that being said, your point is a strong one. Copyright is to protect "creativity", Patents are for "methods and processes". So, can one claim that they wrote creative code to implement the protocol? I would say no. Clearly, the courts would say yes (CSS, Skyloc, etc).

    4. Re:Copyright law? by baadger · · Score: 3, Informative

      That would only be a trademark issue, not a copyright infringement.

    5. Re:Copyright law? by rmcd · · Score: 5, Informative

      My understanding: Under the DMCA, you can be in trouble for possessing technologies that could be used to circumvent technological protections on copyrighted material So it's not that the technology itself is copyrighted, it's probably that it's part of a copyright protection scheme and thus falls under DMCA.

      The EFF's account of the Skylarov case (which is instructive and chilling) is fully documented here.

    6. Re:Copyright law? by Swizec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well that depends on how good your lawyers are. You could defend that it's a body of written text (albeit very short text) and someone copying it is infringing upon your copyright.

      Of course since this is the DMCA, you don't actually have to prove they were infringing or anything.

    7. Re:Copyright law? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Informative

      How can a copyright law be used to take down a protocol implementation? What copyrights were infringed? This would normally fall under patent law.

      It's not copyright law, it's the anti-circumvention provision. The reference RTMP implements various restrictions that the content provider can specify, for instance, marking it as streaming only. The open-source version, however, did not implement those restrictions and was, in fact, used in various projects whose entire purpose was to download media marked only as streamed -- get_iPlayer being the most notorious as used to rip BBC content.

    8. Re:Copyright law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's FUD on their part to sell more licenses. There is not one case-law which agrees with them and plenty that don't. Additionally, there are many interoperability cases and laws (including the DMCA) on our side.

    9. Re:Copyright law? by cruff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My understanding: Under the DMCA, you can be in trouble for possessing technologies that could be used to circumvent technological protections on copyrighted material.

      Let's just hit everyone living with a DMCA take down notice because they have a brain in their head! You never know, that brain might be used as a tool to circumvent a protection mechanism some time.

    10. Re:Copyright law? by mea37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I believe you're correct, but it doesn't matter unless someone actually stands up to fight the point.

      MySQL or Adobe or anyone else can take whatever legal stand they like, no matter how bizarre. They issue a DMCA take-down notice, and there's a process for conteseting it. But even if the notice is completely invalid, if the other guy compiles and doesn't challenge them, then they get all benefit and no cost for their action.

      Unless and until trial, it doesn't matter what the law says; it matters who blinks.

    11. Re:Copyright law? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, based on that criterion, we couldn't include everyone. Think about it. This may be a law from which Congress is naturally immune!

    12. Re:Copyright law? by CarpetShark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How can a copyright law be used to take down a protocol implementation? What copyrights were infringed? This would normally fall under patent law.

      Simple. You threaten someone who's spineless, and they cave. More people need to read:

      http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php

    13. Re:Copyright law? by pieterh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Games (and video games) are explicitly protected by a special kind of design patent. This is what protects the rules and pieces of Monopoly, Scrabble, Risk, and so on. Their look and feel are protected by trademark, and their specific designs by copyright.

      Tetris is likewise protected by design patents, trademarks, and copyright.

      However only the copyright aspect can fall under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

      --
      My blog
    14. Re:Copyright law? by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, this can't be it. I think Adobe is saying that the rtmpdump code actually contains Adobe code, and this is merely a "takedown notice," not an actual complaint of a 1201 violation.

      If they are alleging that 1201 was violated, then it's total bullshit and they are just counting on the rtmpdump people not being able to afford to defend themselves, because if they can afford defense, Adobe will lose.

      Here's why: Adobe is just a protocol inventor and media-tool maker. Such people never really have strong anti-circumvention cases. (Go back to the DeCSS situation: notice it was MPAA that won the court cases, not DVDCCA.)

      If Adobe's products are available to the public, then all you have to do is create some content that uses their stuff, then as the copyright holder, distribute your content along with an announcement that you (the copyright holder) explicitly authorize everyone in the universe to bypass any technological measures that limit access to your work. That removes any possibility of 1201 violations. DMCA becomes a non-issue.

      (That's also why there will never be any DRM standards, or at least not any DRM standards to which DMCA applies. Copyright holders in general (as opposed to MPAA members or the subset of Adobe customers that Adobe says they wish to "protect") have the power to tear it down if they have any way to apply the DRM to their own content.)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    15. Re:Copyright law? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 5, Interesting

      First, this is an unsettled area of law, so really anything anyone says about it should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a small automobile -- if we knew how the Federal Courts would rule in advance of doing so, we would scarcely need them as an institution.

      That said, here's my take. The actual law says (whoa, citing a statute on /.)

      [It shall be illegal to] circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work ...

      Now, the DRM flags in the official RTMP specification are a technological measure designed to control access to the copyrighted work in question -- specifically, the BBC has the right to say "you can watch this but you can't make a copy"*, which is a power granted to them by their copyright**. Insofar as rtmpDump (or whatever) circumvents that restriction by ignoring the DRM flags in the media, they have violated 12USC1201 et. seq.

      One would think there is a difference between a tool used to circumvent copyright, and a tool that fails to enforce the copyright rules.

      My reading of the statute is at variance with yours. The statute makes it illegal to circumvent technological measures, which is a breathtakingly broad term. It basically includes anything that controls access.

      For example, if a DVD player fails to implement a region code, is that culpable under the DMCA? Or if a FOSS PDF reader does not have the code that checks for unprintable documents, a DMCA violation?

      Yes and yes, although the DVD case is much easier since all DVD players have to license the IP and agree to the terms contractually.

      I'm trying to get my head around this. If a specification demands certain restrictions, and those are not implemented, then the implementations can be taken down under the DMCA...

      So if I make a DRM file system and someone implements a simple compatible version but fails to make the DRM work properly, this is illegal. Thus, anyone opening a MS-Office document with a product that does not respect the DRM rules in there is a criminal.

      That was precisely the intent of 12USC120 et. seq. (see ** again) -- to prevent people from implementing versions that circumvent technological measures that control access to the underlying content.

      * Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that technologically speaking, such a restriction is impossible to implement. Simply because a right is enforceable does not negate its existence as a right. This is normally understood in the context of traditional property rights -- I have the right to forbid people from littering on my property, but the fact that the wind blows trash around makes that impossible to enforce in practice and yet no one would claim unfettered right to litter onto private property.

      ** I've tried as much as possible to avoid normative claims for or against the laws in question. This post is a best-effort attempt to describe the state of affairs as they are, not as they should be. I have opinions on how things should be, but it is manifest folly to mix those opinions with a factual question of how things are. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem.

    16. Re:Copyright law? by blitzkrieg3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One would think there is a difference between a tool used to circumvent copyright, and a tool that fails to enforce the copyright rules.

      I fail to see a functional difference

      For example, if a DVD player fails to implement a region code, is that culpable under the DMCA? Or if a FOSS PDF reader does not have the code that checks for unprintable documents, a DMCA violation?

      Yes and yes. Or if a DVD player fails to honor the "no skip" flag for movie trailers.

      I'm trying to get my head around this. If a specification demands certain restrictions, and those are not implemented, then the implementations can be taken down under the DMCA...

      Correct. In fact, this is the DMCA's sole purpose in life.

    17. Re:Copyright law? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its all really stupid because ultimately displayable content is copyable and thats what they refuse to realize.

      What support do you have for the notion that because you can do something, you should be allowed to do that thing. The whole point of The Law is to restrict what we can but ought not to do -- passing laws that restrict actions that people cannot feasibly do ("It shall be illegal to eat the moon") is pointless. So, while I agree entirely on the technical point (displayable content is, in fact, copyable), I disagree very strenuously with the notion that this point alone proves that consumers ought to be able copy content marked 'display only' (perhaps there are other arguments for such an assertion, of course).

      As an example, let me posit this:

      What the GPL writers don't realize, of course, is that any program from which the source code is available can be modified and compiled into a closed source program. Because technological measures to prevent such a thing are impossible, I conclude that people that write GPL code are immoral/stupid/evil for insisting on terms that they cannot enforce by technological constraint.

      It's a classic is/ought problem -- you start with a factual statement and then derive a normative statement when the two are utterly unconnected.

    18. Re:Copyright law? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 3, Informative

      You should be correct is 12USC1201 (et seq) referred to a product but actually, the statutes refers to technological measures. The no-copy-bit in the stream itself is not a product, but definitely a measure.

      For the purposes of the DMCA, the measure itself "lives" inside the stream itself, not in the product meant to interpret that stream. A product is conformant if it does not circumvents (aka, respects) that measure and is in violation if it circumvents (aka, does not respect) that measure.

      For instance, DeCSS does not circumvent the region-coding of DVD players, it simply implements the CSS algorithm in a way that circumvents the region-coding restriction (which is a "measure that effective controls access to a copyrighted work").

    19. Re:Copyright law? by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's worked out pretty well, considering they're still in business, expect to be in business for another five years while the appeal goes through, have discredited the judge in their case, have launched a new business off the publicity, and have encouraged their supporters to elect people who support them not just at a national level, but at a European level. They're a few guys. Think how far on we'd be now if a few more had taken a similar stance. A critical mass of support for p2p could be reached pretty quickly, if people just stood up to be counted.

    20. Re:Copyright law? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1 year in prison can be very damaging to a person mentally and physically, especially if they are not tough and wise to prison life.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    21. Re:Copyright law? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2, Informative

      The makers of rtmpDump don't seem any different then those of the vcr or camera to me.

      If you actually read 12USC1201, you'd know that it is illegal to sell a VCR that does not respect the macrovision flag. In the exact same way, there are flags in RTMP media that control access to the underlying content. rtmpDump circumvents those flags.

      and so long as they send the bytes to me they can have no complaint on how I use (display) those bits on my end (as a user).

      I'm not sure why this is so obvious to everyone as an ethical proposition. If I want to show someone my family vacation photos, I feel like it's quite proper for me to say "look but don't copy" -- same for a draft of a novel I'm writing or a short piece of music I've composed.

      Since you have no right in the first place to demand that someone send you a stream of bytes at all, it seems to me quite obvious that you have no right to require that they not attach conditions to those bytes. This reasoning is known in legal circles as a maiore ad minus -- from the stronger unto the weaker. If the BBC can refuse to give you the bytes in at all, they can give you the right to read the bytes but not copy them.

      Now with the advent of the DMCA - an atrocious law that should be declared in part or whole as unconstitutional - there is a legal ground for attacking the neo-vcr and to that I say bullocks.

      Is the DMCA unconstitutional because it violates a particular provision of the Constitution or just because it's atrocious? People don't like to hear this from lawyers, but the fact is that the Constitution allows many shitty things (it is, after all, manifestly imperfect).

      With no contractual agreement between any of the parties why the fed. gov. need to get involved with everything?

      They need to get involved because a majority of representatives, duly elected by The People, voted to get them involved.

    22. Re:Copyright law? by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well not really FUD. This was obviously a whole marketing tactic targeted at M$ silver light. Adobe wanting to create an atmosphere of goodwill and to keep M$ out made a press announcement they felt would be popular and keep their streaming products in the forefront.

      Now as it turned out M$ silver light, turned out to be M$ silverfish, nobody really wants to touch it they just pretty much throw moth balls at it. So Adobe, the greedy little blighters felt they could get away with going back upon their public announcement and try to squeeze as much money out of the protocol as they can.

      In this case not only do Adobe leave themselves open to a law suit for any time and effort invested by all other companies and individuals based upon that announcement, they have also created an opening for M$ to squeeze back into that market, now where was that download site for silverfish ;).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    23. Re:Copyright law? by Alsee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What support do you have for the notion that because you can do something, you should be allowed to do that thing.

      People should not be allowed to commit arson, rape, or murder.
      The issue, the notion, is that people should have the ability to commit arson, rape, and murder.

      That is the insanity going on in this issue. The confusion of crimes vs abilities.

      Say someone owns a pile of logs. They are perfectly entitled to post a "flag" on those logs saying "do not burn". They are also perfectly entitled to cover those logs in fire retardant slime making it more difficult to burn those logs. The insanity going on here is the notion that the "do not burn" flag on those signs will actually prevent those logs from being burned, the insanity is the notion that the flag actually has any effect on whether or not it is legal to burn them, the insanity is the notion that speech explaining how to "circumvent" that slime should be criminal, the notion that having the ability to "circumvent" slime should be criminal, the insanity is the notion that the act of "circumventing" the slime to burn the logs should be criminal.

      I disagree very strenuously with the notion that this point alone proves that consumers ought to be able copy content marked 'display only'

      I most strenuously disagree with you there.

      No, I should not burn your logs. That is arson.

      Yes, I should have the ability to burn logs with a "do not burn" flag on them.
      Yes, I should have the ability to burn logs with fire retardant slime on them.
      Yes, I should have the free speech to explain how to "circumvent" fire retardant slime.

      You own your logs, you can put flags on them, you can put slime on them, and you can then go ahead and burn them if you like. They are your logs and it is not a crime for you to burn them. It is not a crime for you to ignore those flags, it is not a crime for you to "circumvent" the fire retardant slime.

      You can also sell those slimed & do-not-burn-flagged logs.
      Once I buy that log, it is not arson for me to burn the particular log I bought.
      Just because you sold it with a "do not burn" flag, does not mean it becomes arson for me to burn it.
      Just because you sold it with fire retardant slime on it, does not make it a crime for me to burn it.

      Someone can publish a book or a movie with a "do not copy" flag. Yes it is illegal for someone to make infringing copies. However it is not copyright infringement for a student to copy sentences out for a school book report, it is not copyright infringement for someone to make a backup copy of software, it is not copyright infringement for someone to format shift copy music to play on a different device, it is not copyright infringement for someone to copy a movie to edit out violent or sexual scenes for private performance to their children. Just because a movie is flagged "do not copy" does not make it copyright infringement for someone to engage in copying.

      No, people should not commit infringement.
      Yes, people should have the ability to "copy content marked 'display only'".

      Someone can publish a book or music or movie in piglatin in an effort to make it more difficult to copy. Yes, they have publish it in funky super-scrambled-piglatin to make it more difficult to copy. That's all DRM is - a somewhat more complex version of piglatin scrambling up the content.

      No, people should not infringe that piglatin scrambled content.
      Yes, people should have the freedom of speech to explain how piglatin works.
      Yes, people should have the freedom of speech to explain how to descramble piglatin.
      Yes, people should have the ability to descramble that piglatin.
      Yes, people should have the ability to copy that content.
      Copying does not equal infringement.
      People should not infringe, but yes they should go right ahead and copy when it isn't infringement.

      The intent of DRM-scrambling is to prevent copyright infringement. What

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  2. Ah, Open Screen by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Next time, before you open source developers get a hardon for the latest "Open" thing, read the fine print.

    Just because something says "open" doesn't mean it is so. And just because some press release says "giving developers access", it doesn't mean they are giving it to you.

    Why don't they do what they say, say what they mean?

    1. Re:Ah, Open Screen by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem people think Open Source they think GNU. It is not the case. GNU isn't the only Open Source (besides what the GNU people wants you to believe). They all really try to balance Original Developers freedom vs. End User/Supplemental Developer Freedom, based on the values of the licence creators depends where on the scale they are. Open Source Software can be Look but don't touch to Public Domain.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Ah, Open Screen by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Informative

      The word "open" had established meanings before open source -- OpenGroup, X/Open, Open Software Foundation, etc. GNU doesn't use the word open, preferring FREE (which has it's own multiple-usage problems). I think "liberty" is less ambiguous.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  3. So much for being open-source friendly... by javacowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These kinds of shenanigans will turn off the open source community for good. Their half-hearted attempt to court the community by open sourcing their Flex toolkit, while leaving the underlying Flash runtime closed, will do them no good.

    Here's hoping JavaFX takes off and open sources the remaining proprietary extensions and the open source community has an RIA framework to rally around.

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
    1. Re:So much for being open-source friendly... by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      JavaFX could great. But Sun has thus far missed a very, very important reason Flash is popular:

      It needs an easy to use, artist friendly IDE tool

      Targeting programmers exclusively with a programming language is half the reason why applets have failed to catch on.

      The plugins for art are a joke really.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:So much for being open-source friendly... by mea37 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe so, but this isn't new behavior on Adobe's part.

      They make a big deal of publishing the PDF spec, but (at least as of five years ago) they publisehd only enough information in the spec that you can write a good PDF reader. They leave out details that you would need to make their reader respond correctly to optimizations like linearized PDF (which you really need to do lengthly web-delivered documents "right") in documents you create, and when you call them on it they say they don't support development of applications that write PDF.

      In other words, it's "open" enough to encourage broader use of the format, while maintaining lock-in as the only suitable producer of content in that format.

    3. Re:So much for being open-source friendly... by mea37 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Correct me if I'm wrong"

      Ok. You're wrong. PDF is an Adobe proprietary format. There are other readers because (as I noted above) they publish enough spec to let you write readers. Acrobat Reader is the canonical reader implementation, and other Acrobat products are the canonical software for writing PDF.

      Because there are other readers, and because those readers presumably don't know whatever magic incantation makes Acrobat Reader recognize linearization (which is a not an extension but rather is a core part of the spec), you could write PDF-producing software that might work 100% well with those other readers. But in the corporate world, that's not good enough; when a business publishes something as PDF, it needs to work wtih Acrobat.

  4. Will we get to see the request? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I want to see the request so I can find out whether sourceforge was justified in "complying". Did they just knee-jerk? If so, I imagine (and hope) that a lot of developers will be leaving for someplace less likely to terminate their hosting over nonsense. Until/unless we see the request we won't know about that part, all we'll know is what we already knew, that Adobe is evil. Their response to piracy has been to steadily increase the amount of DRM, which of course gets broken almost immediately every time they "improve" it, so they're only harming their customers. So stupid, so very stupid.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Will we get to see the request? by stonewallred · · Score: 3, Funny

      Adobe products are not free as in like beer? I thought they put all those photoshop/acrobat/publisher/etc torrents up as advertising.

    2. Re:Will we get to see the request? by Misch · · Score: 2, Informative

      I want to see the request so I can find out whether sourceforge was justified in "complying". Did they just knee-jerk?

      I wouldn't classify it as "knee-jerk", but it's essentially what the law calls for. Read up on the "Safe Harbor" provisions of the DMCA. Basically, it is "shoot first and ask questions later".

      --

      --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
  5. Plus for Theora by should_be_linear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I tought Theora is useless on the web, given Flash is becoming open, but now I think standard way of video streaming (based on Theora) is *definetly* needed. I don't understand why project was deleted from SF? I mean, DMCA is used only in USA, so I, plus couple of other people, don't give a flying fuck about that. Why we follow least common denominator way of doing things, like accepting software patents, DMCA-shit ... whats next, integrating Chinese internet filters (thats valid law, just like DMCA) right into Kernel? How about reverse approach: making special (crippled) editions of software projects for countries with screwed up laws.

    --
    839*929
    1. Re:Plus for Theora by MrMr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      DMCA is used only in USA
      Must be thanks to the best legal system money can buy.
      As an old Adobe hater I try to avoid their stuff, but I downloaded a source tarball for good measure anyway.

    2. Re:Plus for Theora by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't understand why project was deleted from SF? I mean, DMCA is used only in USA

      SourceForge, Inc. is headquartered in Mountain View, California, USA.

      so I, plus couple of other people, don't give a flying fuck about that.

      Then host your projects in your own country, not on a U.S. server.

    3. Re:Plus for Theora by pavon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if flash opened up completely, all the codecs it uses for video are still proprietary, and Adobe has no leverage to change that even if they wanted to. So at best opening up Flash removes the need for SVG and the new HTML 5 webapp features. It doesn't change the need for an open video codec at all.

  6. Anyone know where to find rtmpdump 1.6? by jdb2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You get get the rtmpdump v1.5a source here, although this is not the latest version. AFAIK v1.6 was the last version to be released but it seems to have disappeared from the Web, even on non-sourceforge-affiliated sites.

    jdb2

    1. Re:Anyone know where to find rtmpdump 1.6? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.megashare.com/935955

    2. Re:Anyone know where to find rtmpdump 1.6? by lkcl · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://lkcl.net/rtmp

      torrent also available.

  7. Not surprising. It was in the license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is this really that surprising? Adobe's press release when they announced the RTMP spec even says, "To benefit customers who want to protect their content, the open RTMP specification will not include Adobeâ(TM)s unique secure RTMP measures, nor will the license that accompanies the specification allow developers to circumvent such measures."

    So wasn't the takedown notice sent because they circumvented what the license said they couldn't?

  8. Inaccurate summary by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Adobe is no stranger to the DMCA..." That part is true. But the rest isn't true enough. It would be more accurate to say "...because they helped write it and pay for its implementation."

  9. Ah, Open Your Wallet by Nick+Driver · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's what they want "open" to actually mean.

  10. where is DMCA valid? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can somebody they just setup pirateforge in Sweden to host these projects?

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  11. And the lesson is... by mea37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Regardless of the legal merits (or lack thereof) of their claims, and regardless of the general sleeze factor, there's really one lesson we should all learn if we didn't know it already:

    A corporation, legal euphamisms aside, is not a person. You can't rely on its sense of honor, even if you think it believed it was making a true promise. You can't rely on it to have a single, consistent mind on any given issue. In short, a "promise" from a corporation means zero (perhaps less if the "promise" was in a press release). Licenses and contracts (in verifiable form - i.e. written and signed) can mean something, but without one you have no shield from liability if the company decides it didn't really promise what you think it promised.

    1. Re:And the lesson is... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I should have said is, you can never rely on a corporation to stick to a promise. There are people I trust; there are not corporations I trust in that sense. Corporate inconsistency isn't like a person "changing his mind"; a corporation can hold two contradictory views concurrently in a way most people cannot, because it is not a single person with a single mind.

      There are corporations that I trust to varying degrees. I let Google host all my personal mail, calendar and contact information (I have a mirror) even knowing that they could read it all and use it to reset my bank, credit card and etrade account password and basically wreck my life. There are corporations that I trust because I know the principals.

      And there are many people I know that hold two contradictory views at the same time -- I do myself! I am Large, I contain Multitudes (Walt Whitman).

      As for promissary estoppel... against a corporation? I do wish you luck with that, but I don't hold out much hope.

      I have successfully asserted that a dental surgeon that told me that a particular operation was covered by my insurance was then barred by promissory estoppel from charging me for it. In the end, we settled for me paying him what I would have paid as a deductible. One anecdote doesn't make data, but promissory estoppel is alive an well in common law countries.

  12. Get It While It's Hot by blitzkrieg3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    sf.net may have taken it down, but the other sites are still up and running. Here are some download links:

    get-flash-videos
    index of rtpdump-1.3a, including source rpms
    download page for getiplayer
    linux/unix tarball

  13. chillingeffects? by asdfndsagse · · Score: 3, Informative

    The project is down here google cache still up.

    Does sourceforge (slashdot's partner site) publish DMCA requests to chilling effects. Allow, I am highly disappointed that it just says "Invalid project" instead of saying that it was removed per the DMCA. Learn something from google sourceforge!

  14. Open? by FrostedWheat · · Score: 3, Funny

    So it's open, as in a mouse trap... ?

  15. Further evidence that Adobe is Evil by ElmoGonzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As if any was needed. The splash screen took over input while waiting an eon for the plugin to load should have been a capital offense from the outset.

    1. Re:Further evidence that Adobe is Evil by josath · · Score: 2, Informative

      Huh? I think you have Adobe and Sun confused. Flash is the one that loads instantly, Java is the one that locks up your entire browser for 5-10 seconds with the Java splashscreen while you wait for the JVM to load.

      --
      sig? uhh, umm, ok
  16. Backup of rtmpdump-1.6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    For those looking, this is the most recent release of rtmpdump (1.6): http://www.megashare.com/935955

    You can also find 1.5a here: http://www.easy-share.com/1905295810/rtmpdump-v1.5a.tar_1.gz (http://www.badongo.com/file/15056784)

    They have just replaced rtmpdump support in a new version with flvstreamer, but it has no RTMPE support. This encrypted RTMP support is new in rtmpdump 1.5 and is probably what got them DMCA'd in the first place. You can find 1.3 and 1.4 on a couple sites but those versions do not have the critical RTMPE support.

  17. Now I am furious by hubert.lepicki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What these stupid guys at Adobe think they are doing? Well, I refuse since now to embed any flash video on any site. Go to hell and burn there, bastards.

  18. Usage problem: copyright vs copywrite by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Copywriting the game rules

    I stopped reading at word one. The verb "to copywrite" means "to write promotional text", not "to secure copyright in". In Berne Convention member states, anything copywritten is automatically copyrighted, but confusing the two words is still a good indicator that one has not thoroughly read the copyright statute (Title 17, United States Code). Even if George H. Morgan is a professional engineer and a patent agent, that doesn't automatically make him knowledgeable in copyright law. Besides, a publication from the Copyright Office explains that per 17 USC 102(b), copyrighting a game's manual protects only the expression of the rules in the manual, not the method of operation embodied in the manual.

    the board design, the card designs, the packaging

    Aspects of the board design dictated by the game rules, such as that there are 40 spaces around the outside of a square, are uncopyrightable per the doctrines of merger and scenes a faire. Anything else, such as the background around the playfield, gets changed in clones.

    I'd assume the game patent expires after 20 years, but can be green-fielded by making changes ever decade or so.

    It would have expired in 2005 had Pajitnov and Elorg applied for one in 1985. But as I said, a search of USPTO's database turns up nothing assigned to Elorg or Tetris Holding.

  19. The guy in Russia works for Tetri-SCO-mpany now by tepples · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tetris Co is more like SCO than anything else

    In fact, you can't spell The TetriS COmpany without SCO.

    The game was copied/ripped off from a guy in Russia who doesn't even have any kind of relationship with the company claiming now to own the game.

    The guy in Russia who invented Tetris was Alexey Pajitnov. An interview with Henk Rogers explains that Pajitnov and Rogers make up two-thirds of a committee in The Tetris Company that maintains the design document that defines modern Tetris.

    (especially if you consider the fact that the makers of Tetris-like games are careful enough to avoid calling their game "Tetris" to avoid this issue)

    But could a lawyer connect Tetris to tetanus to Lockjaw?