Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Pulls Open Source CoreAVC Project Over DMCA Complaint

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the not-like-google-has-much-choice dept.

Software 207

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.)

cancel ×

207 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge, &a (4, Insightful)

base3 (539820) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296016)

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.

Re:This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge, (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296118)

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

Re:This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296350)

Last I checked, doing almost anything over freenet was nigh impossible. I'd wait until you could put up *anything* reliably before even thinking about something like version control.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296020)

Did not have time to register...

Interesting how this comes on the heels of Adobe and Open Source maneuvers.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=571

Draw your own conclusions.

No.. (0)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296030)

(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.)

No, Google's page has a link to Chilling Effects homepage. Where did the submitter get the idea that "it will take you there when it is"? Please people, I know it's a bit trivial but please put on your reading comprehension hats.

Yes.. (2, Informative)

Svenne (117693) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296064)

You appear to have missed this sentence:

"If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint [chillingeffects.org] that caused the removal at ChillingEffects.org."

Re:Yes.. (4, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296446)

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.

Re:No.. (1)

peipas (809350) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296080)

If you click the DMCA complaint [chillingeffects.org] link on the Google project page [google.com] it takes you to the specific takedown to which the submitter refers, not the main page.

Re:No.. (0, Offtopic)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296106)

I'm guessing you didn't actually click the link you are referring to. It doesn't take you to a take down notice, it takes you to a "uh, the notice you are looking for is not here." notice.

Re:No.. (-1, Offtopic)

peipas (809350) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296142)

I think you misunderstood my comment, which was refuting its parent's claim, nothing more.

Re:No.. (0, Offtopic)

Zerth (26112) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296144)

Exactly, it takes you to "where it will be" as it said in the article, which the GGP said was BS and the GP refuted.

Re:No.. (1)

Anaerin (905998) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296200)

I'm guessing you didn't actually click the link you are referring to. It doesn't take you to a take down notice, it takes you to a "uh, the notice you are looking for is not here." notice.

And I'm guessing you didn't actually read the summary above (not even TFA), where it says:

(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.)

File a counter notice (5, Insightful)

RedWizzard (192002) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296034)

If Google have received a notice then they have no option but to take down the site. Someone needs to file a counter [chillingeffects.org] notice [chillingeffects.org] , then Google will reinstate them.

Re:File a counter notice (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296062)

I keep thinking "Google is a big company now... do they really not have a legal department to handle BS like this yet?"

Re:File a counter notice (4, Informative)

RedWizzard (192002) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296114)

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.

Re:File a counter notice (5, Insightful)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296148)

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.

Re:File a counter notice (5, Informative)

RedWizzard (192002) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296232)

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.

I think this is really unfair (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296618)

I fucked Ann Coulter. Hard. I fucked her in her tight slutty asshole and then I pulled my cock out and she sucked on it. She loves sucking on my cock once it's been in her tight asshole. I rammed her hard and fast as my throbbing meatpole stretched her butthole apart. Then I shoved my cock in her cunt and fucked her dumb brains out. The stupid slut kept screaming and telling me how much she loved being treated like a dirt fuckslave, a fucking cumslut, a whorish little fuckbunny. Then she begged me to let her lick my asshole. How could I refuse? I let her suck on my asshole as she flicked her tongue on it while jacking my throbbing cock. She wrapped her lips around my asshole and sucked it hard, flicking her tongue it, kissing it and licking it and moaning like the dirty cumslut whore she is. Then she reached back and took her cunt juices and rub it all around my asshole and proceeded to lick her love juices off my tight asshole. I bent her over and fucked her in her slutty butthole again, and then shoved my cock down her throat and facefucked her. I slapped her face with my cock and then shoved my dick back in her butthole. After a few minutes of buttfucking the bitch, I pulled me cock out. She sucked me clean and then proceeded to lick my asshole some more while jacking me off. The dirty filthy cumbunny fuckslave sure knew how to give a good rusty trombone. After a few minutes of expert rimming, I was ready to blow my load. I blew spurts of thick, hot, white, sticky cum all over her face. Thick sticky wads straight into her mouth. Cumming over and over. Thick ropes of cum arcing up high, streaming out and splattering all over her slutty face. She sucked out all my cum as I emptied my balls all over her. She then used my cock to rub my cum all over her face. It was an amazing fuck-session. Ann Coulter is an amazingly filthy slut and I encourage everyone to fuck her. Right now I have the slut so horny that I can ram that bitch anytime I want. Ann Coulter really is a spectacular cunt.

Re:I think this is really unfair (-1, Flamebait)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296926)

You keep referring to mAnn Coulter as "she." Do you see the error?

Re:File a counter notice (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296894)

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).

Re:File a counter notice (3, Insightful)

RedWizzard (192002) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297066)

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).
Yes. If the cost is really that high the user is free to sue to recover those costs. The law sucks, I'm not defending it. I just don't see why people expect Google to assume the risks.

Re:File a counter notice (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297210)

If the cost is really that high the user is free to sue to recover those costs.
The service provider is statutorily immune. From 17 USC 512(g) [copyright.gov] :

a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider's good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing.
Did you mean sue the party who served the notice?

Re:File a counter notice (1)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297256)

Did you mean sue the party who served the notice?
That's what I assumed he meant.

Re:File a counter notice (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297154)

And the user eats all costs of business interruption while the disputed content stays down for a minimum of two weeks (10 business days).
If the content were that important to a business, it would probably make sense to pay $10/year for a domain, and roughly $20/month for hosting.

Rather than relying on someone else who can take your content down at any time for any reason.

Re:File a counter notice (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297218)

If the content were that important to a business, it would probably make sense to pay $10/year for a domain, and roughly $20/month for hosting.
The $20/mo hosting provider still has to take down the content for two weeks to keep its own safe harbor under the DMCA or foreign counterparts.

Re:File a counter notice (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296150)

After looking at it more, I realized I was assuming this was a Google-owned project, not that they were just hosting it, so you're right.

Torrent? (2, Insightful)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296108)

Or post a bittorrent link with the word "banned by DMCA" in the title, ensuring it will NEVER go away and may in fact increase distribution by increasing demand.

It's 1st year economics: scarcity creates demand.

Re:Torrent? (2, Informative)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296412)

It's 1st year economics: scarcity creates demand.

It's 1st year economics, and you managed to fuck it up anyway. Good job.

Supply and demand do not cause each other. In other words, an item being scarce does not imply many people will want it. It implies that the people who *do* want it *may* have to pay a lot, but it doesn't automatically mean those people exist.

Re:Torrent? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297188)

It's 1st year economics: scarcity creates demand.
It's not 1st year economics - it's 1st year marketing. Keep something scarce, make it harder to get, increase buzz, increase demand. See, for example, the Wii. Or Gmail accounts once upon a time.

Re:File a counter notice (5, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296154)

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.

Re:File a counter notice (5, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296198)

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.

Re:File a counter notice (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296348)

You have to look at it like Google's legal team will be looking at it
Exactly.

Google's legal team works for Google. Google is in business to make money, not get wrapped up in lawsuits about idealism rather than profit.

Yes, I know! It's hard to believe.

And if I had the private number to Larry's and Sergey's yacht, I'd call them and give them a piece of my mind.

Re:File a counter notice (3, Insightful)

Barraketh (630764) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296470)

And if I had the private number to Larry's and Sergey's yacht, I'd call them and give them a piece of my mind.

And you would say... what exactly? Google is doing nothing more than obeying the law. The law very clearly states that in order to have 'safe harbor' protection from copyright infringement lawsuits, Google must take down the content, and it's up to the person who put it up in the first place to challenge the DMCA notice.

I don't think Google could fight this particular battle even if they wanted to. I'm not entirely sure about this point, but I think DMCA is an all or nothing deal - you either don't monitor any content, or you monitor all of it, so if they don't obey this DMCA notice, they're liable for all the other copyrighted material they host/link to.

The point is, you don't like it - feel free to lobby congress to change the law, or start a defense fund so that the CoreAVC team can go to court and prove they're not infringing on anyone's copyrights. Just don't blame Google for obeying the law of the land.

Re:File a counter notice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296558)

Clearly, the parent flew right over your head. WHOOOOOOSH!

Re:File a counter notice (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296862)

I don't think Google could fight this particular battle even if they wanted to. I'm not entirely sure about this point, but I think DMCA is an all or nothing deal - you either don't monitor any content, or you monitor all of it, so if they don't obey this DMCA notice, they're liable for all the other copyrighted material they host/link to.


Actually, no. The DMCA does not create any liability. Whatever protection from liability existed before the DMCA still exists. See 17 USC 512(l) This protection was actually quite substantial; the main reason the copyright interests supported the DMCA is because in exchange for something they didn't actually have (liability for online hosting providers and search engines), they got something they wanted (takedowns outside the judicial process).

Further, failure to act on one DMCA notice should not expose the provider to liability with respect to other unrelated claims of infringement; it would take some twisted legal maneuvering to get that one across (or perhaps a judge with the same motivations as the district judge in the Verizon case). The only way they could lose DMCA safe harbor for everything is if they didn't designate an agent to receive the notices.

So yes, a service provider could receive, e.g., a notice from the James Bond people for "PussyGalore.jpg", check and see that it's a picture of your cats, and tell the James Bond people to stuff it, and still be protected by the DMCA safe harbor for "Octopussy.mpg" which turned out to be the actual movie.

Re:File a counter notice (1)

RedWizzard (192002) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296396)

Google can give up safe harbor protection but it's not clear to me (IANAL) that they can do so for a single complaint. And why should they? All the user has to do is to post a counter notice. Why should Google expose themselves to possible liability just to save a user having to post a notice?

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.
The copyright owner can still sue the user regardless of whether Google honors the takedown notice or not. Google refusing in no way protects the user from liability, it only increases Google's potential liability. Yes, they may stop some incorrect notices, but the user can do that just as easily by simply filing a counter notice.

Re:File a counter notice (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296806)

Google is an advertising and marketing company. Typical publishers are major users of advertising, not only to sell their content but also buried within their content. Google is coming under pressure because growth is slowing even with overseas expansion. They are becoming very sensitive to the demands of publishers and are basically just starting to roll over at every demand made.

Their feel good marketing campaign which gained them a lot of market acceptance is losing it's tarnish and they are being exposed for just another cynical marketing company. Easy cheap reaction to a DMCA, kill the content, if you do not have lawyers reading them you can employ less lawyers. Now consider the return they get per user is pretty minimal, so you can justify very little cost per user, certainly not the cost of reading a DMCA, investigating the history of the content, contacting and discussing the content with the people who put it up and then contacting and discussing that with the lawyers who submitted the DMCA, however you will spread a bit of B$ to hide the penny counting cynicism that puts profit before 'free' speech.

It is becoming obvious that the DMCA was specifically written so that it could be readily and cheaply abused. A real tangible indication of a governments willingness to subjugate the majority who can't really afford 'free' speech to the demands of a rich and greedy minority.

Business posturing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296036)

Did not have time to register...

Interesting how this comes on the heels of Adobe and Open Source maneuvers.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=571 [zdnet.com]

Draw your own conclusions.

Where Else? (5, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296050)

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

Re:Where Else? (1)

lbelloq (1180965) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296086)

Is there any country where the DMCA cannot be enforced?

Re:Where Else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296152)

The DMCA is a US only law. It is inapplicable in other countries.

Re:Where Else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296302)

The DMCA is a US only law.

It is inapplicable in other countries.
That doesn't help US coders, of course.

"Free" trade agreements (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296920)

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.

Identical (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297340)

Is the Australian legislation really identical?

I ask because I can't recall any DMCA style take down (ie notification, counter notification etc) taking place here.

I think we've adopted certain aspects of the DMCA (such as banning circumvention of "effective technical measures") but I don't think it's reasonable to suggest we have adopted the DMCA completely.

There doesn't seem to be anything similar to the DMCA's takedown notices mentioned in the agreement [dfat.gov.au]

Re:Where Else? (4, Interesting)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296174)

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.

Re:Where Else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296740)

Oh really? I can think of numerous crappy state laws in recent years, but not a single bad "law" from the UN. The EU is struggling against corruption, but it's doing a lot better than some of its member states.

I'll concede that the US Fed has become a disaster in recent years, but it has nothing to do with people wanting them to solve problems.

Re:Where Else? (3, Insightful)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296898)

Only because the UN isn't a lawmaking body. If it were, you could expect their corruption to make corrupt politicians at the national level look like saints.

Re:Where Else? (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297196)

I can think of numerous crappy state laws in recent years, but not a single bad "law" from the UN.
As the other poster said, the UN doesn't make laws. They make resolutions, but at best those can be considered guidelines.

The closest thing would be international treaties, and I can easily think of a few bad ones [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Where Else? (4, Insightful)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296194)

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.

Re:Where Else? (5, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296330)

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.

Re:Where Else? (1)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297192)

Actually no what? What part of my statement are you negating? I never said Israel had a DMCA like law. In fact, I suspected middle eastern countries probably didn't.

Re:Where Else? (5, Informative)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296334)

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 [michaelgeist.ca] for more information.)

Re:Where Else? (1)

Crayon Kid (700279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296694)

That said, I believe most EU countries, as well as Australia and recently Canada have laws similar to the DMCA.
That's a strange belief (not to mention wrong). Why do you assume it's normal for most countries to have something similar to the DMCA? Most countries' enforcement of copyright does not reach the ridiculous levels seen in the US.

Re:Where Else? (1)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297240)

I didn't say most countries, I said most EU countries, Australia, and Canada. Canada I guess I was wrong about. They have managed to stave it off. As far as the EU, I guess I saw a bunch of articles like this [zdnet.co.uk] and this [zdnet.co.uk] a few years back. Additionally, I seem to remember at least Switzerland, the UK, and Germany passing stricter regulation.

If you could clarify the situation for me, I and other readers here would be grateful, I'm sure.

Re:Where Else? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297280)

The magic word is EUCD. According to wikipedia Spain and the Czech Republic are the only two member states that don't have it yet.

You are incorrect about Canada, for now (2, Insightful)

Phil Urich (841393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296768)

I forgive you for getting it wrong, since there keep being stories about "Canadian DMCA about to pass!!!!1" but as it turns out we've had really weak governments for the past while and thus in fact a full equivalent of the DMCA has yet to pass (unless I've missed something in the past month?). Key word being "yet", but it has never been a priority of the recent minority governments, nor have they quite had the time.

In terms of oppressive new legislation and expansion of corporate rights, Canada tends to lag behind the States just a tad, enough that in Canada people feel smug, all "oh, silly Americans. We would never trample the citizens in *our* country like that". And of course a Canadian from 10 years ago transported to today without having experienced the slowly rising boil would be aghast. But to degrees it's like that in many countries as of late.

Re:Where Else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296992)

That said, I believe most EU countries, as well as Australia and recently Canada have laws similar to the DMCA.
While there are talks about it, Canada does not yet have a DMCA style law.

Re:Where Else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296662)

Is there any country where the DMCA cannot be enforced?
I would say "any other country", but since the USA has turned into a pack of bullies lately, and has even seized HW not in their country (them stealing some UK servers for IndyMedia comes to mind) for violating their laws... so... um...

Who knows?

Re:Where Else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296338)

hosting in countries that do not have DMCA-esque laws
I'd rather not host a project on a server owned by the Russian Business Network [wikipedia.org] .

Takedown not controversial... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296082)

There isn't anything controversial in the fact that they responded to the takedown notice. If they don't, they can lose their common carrier status and become liable for all content on their servers, which they surely do not want. If they fail to put the project back up given appropriate counter notice, that's controversial.

Re:Takedown not controversial... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296208)

That's like AT&T losing their common carrier status because they refuse to kick a known mob boss off their network. I would actually argue, that doing something to stop the illegal activity would cause them to lose their common carrier status. The common carrier status (if Google even has any in this situation) means that they don't have to do anything to stop illegal activity occurring on their network.

Re:Takedown not controversial... (1)

crankyspice (63953) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296280)

There isn't anything controversial in the fact that they responded to the takedown notice. If they don't, they can lose their common carrier status and become liable for all content on their servers, which they surely do not want. If they fail to put the project back up given appropriate counter notice, that's controversial.

Sigh. Google doesn't have "common carrier" status ("common carrier" is a legal term of art with a specific meaning). What they'd lose, if they didn't act "expeditiously" to remove content complained about in a 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3) notice, is the DMCA's "safe harbor" protection.

Also, if they didn't put the content back up after a legally sufficient counter-notice, they'd lose a different aspect of their DMCA safe harbor; it's not "controversial," it's common sense.

Term of art vs. colloquialism (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297050)

Google doesn't have "common carrier" status ("common carrier" is a legal term of art with a specific meaning).
Plenty of words have both a "legal term of art" meaning and a more general informal meaning. As I understand it, the informal meaning of "common carrier" includes DMCA safe harbor status.

Re:Takedown not controversial... (1)

EveLibertine (847955) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296526)

The takedown isn't controversial, but the complaint itself appears to be. I believe conveying this was the intention of the summary, though apparently poorly worded.

Core codec is based on open source, they lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296092)

The code base of core codec "inc" is based on open source from years gone back. It was closed and $ was charged a year or two ago, but all the code stems from open source, only now that it's closed (and reworked) it's difficult to prove. Liars. Cheats. All for a few measly $.

I figured this might happen. (4, Interesting)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296128)

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.

Re:I figured this might happen. (3, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296168)

That's insane.

Re:I figured this might happen. (1)

Compholio (770966) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296258)

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.
That's insane.
Why's that? It seems reasonable to me, F/OSS frequently pushes the "information wants to be free" idea, so I can see companies confusing that with "these people want to 'steal' 'our' content".

Re:I figured this might happen. (1)

ardle (523599) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297158)

That's insane.
Which bit?

Re:I figured this might happen. (4, Informative)

Comsn (686413) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296264)

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 [mplayerhq.hu]

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 [google.com]

Re:I figured this might happen. (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296688)

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.

Re:I figured this might happen. (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297014)

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.

That is not true. The ISP is permitted, not compelled to put the contact back up after having received a counterclaim. Most ISPs decline, preferring to let their customers go rather than deal with the (non-existent, given the safe harbor provision) risk of being sued.

GPL: Intellectual Theft (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296146)

As a consultant for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.

Although we met several technical challenges along the way
(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.

So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
now be available at no cost to our competitors.

Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
another solution. Although it was tough to do, there really was no
option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.

I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
it remains only a bit player.

Thank you for your time.

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft (1)

Unfocused (723787) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296250)

So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use.
You only need to public the source code if you distribute the modified version. If its never distributed, you source code never needs to be distributed either.

Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
What a load of crap - the GPL doesn't cover this in any way. If a lawyer did indeed give this advice, they should be fired. And FYI, GPL is NOT "GNU Protective License". Its GNU/GPL and stands for GNU General Public Licence.

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296410)

What a load of crap - the GPL doesn't cover this in any way. If a lawyer did indeed give this advice, they should be fired. And FYI, GPL is NOT "GNU Protective License". Its GNU/GPL and stands for GNU General Public Licence.

Yeah, by that logic Microsoft's EULA grants them ownership over anything you create in Excel or Word. Or Outlook. Or SQL Server. Heck, pretty much any data file created on Windows suddenly becomes property of Microsoft.

Of course, I'd imagine that Intel has a similar EULA for the microcode on their processors....

Here's a hint: Input and output files are data files, not code. They have nothing to do at all with the licensing of the input or the output.

When code and input files are distributed together (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297120)

Input and output files are data files, not code. They have nothing to do at all with the licensing of the input or the output.
It's often the case that code designed to work with specific input files and input files designed to work with specific code are distributed together. This is the case with a program and its icons, or with a game program and its models/textures/maps/sounds [happypenguin.org] . Neither the GPL nor the GPL FAQ makes it clear to me when the collective work of a program and its tightly coupled input files qualifies as an "aggregate".

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft (1)

pikine (771084) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296282)

Gentlemen and Gentleladies, please refute it here (2003) [kuro5hin.org] , here (Mar 2007) [slashdot.org] , or here (Dec 2007) [slashdot.org] , or or not waste your time at all.

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296292)

I have to agree with the above poster. I recently began doing free-lance programing work in the Chicago area after my layoff. I got a contract to program an inventory control system for a small chain of supermarkets. I recommended to the management that they should move to this Linux platform I heard about. At my previous place of employment, we were an exclusive Windows house, but one of my friends demonstrated the advantages about Linux. Like a used car salesman he tried to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge with this open source software, and like the typical conman didn't tell me about all the strings attached.

So the management was eager to move to this new platform because in this slowing economy cutting costs is a plus. I began working on this new program right away, but the worse was about to come.

I walked into the flagship store, and was told by the secretary that I should see the manager. I promptly went into his office only to see him and the company lawyer having a conversation. The lawyer began to tell me what a screw up I was for working with Linux, he felt very confident about what he was saying, as if he had this conversation many times before with his other clients.

Apparently, the distribution license that is wrapped around Linux and other OSS programs strips the users ability to gain a competitive advantage against other competing firms in the industry. It seems that the code has to be freely made available on the Internet, for anyone to use. Obviously, my hard work could be taken by anyone and used for free without either compensating the company or me.

Suffice to say my services were no longer needed, and I was abruptly terminated. The owner of the company was a very well known and respected man among the business elite of the Chicago-area. He effectively got me blacklisted, and I can no longer find work. The GPL has not only cause a set back for a chain of supermarkets, but has ruined my life as well.

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296342)

Nice fabrication there.

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296506)

you are stupid and/or your lawyers lack basic reading comprehension skills. You should fire them. The GPL is no more 'intellectual theft' than proprietary licensing is 'user rights theft.' Not that stealing an 'idea' is possible. No one's forcing you to use the software. Don't like the license, use something else.

1. if you distribute binaries of modified gpl source, you must provide source diffs. if you're only using the software internally, you have no reason to do this.

2. you can compile whatever you want with gcc and distribute it under any license. For example, id software did this with the quake games. if you modify and DISTRIBUTE the compiler itself, then, yes you'd need to provide patches for the compiler, not your project. if your project links to libraries, make sure the libs are LGPL, which allows for dynamic linking without having the calling program be GPL.

3. token ring? people still use that?

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296600)

In case anybody has not seen this before, the above story could not actually have occurred (because it contains glaring legal and technical inaccuracies).

Some asshat needs to post this same story, verbatim, every few weeks.

Mirror of project outside US? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296176)

Is there a mirror of the project outside the US?

Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name (4, Interesting)

hcmtnbiker (925661) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296178)

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.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296202)

I think trademark is a completely separate issue from DMCA takedowns.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name (5, Insightful)

arkanes (521690) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296220)

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

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name (5, Insightful)

belmolis (702863) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296272)

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.

Parent is most useful post on this thread! (1)

ardle (523599) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297180)

...followed by this one ;-)

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name (4, Interesting)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297270)


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?

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296238)

It's not a product at all, just a small patch to make the windows version of coreavc codec work with some linux video players.

Don't send the lawyers in first ... (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296244)

Unless you want to prove you are a dickhead.

Regardless, names do not have copyright protection and there is nothing about trademarks in the DMCA. So either their lawyers are dumb, they intentionally misuse the DMCA or there is something else amiss.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296378)

Can we stop saying 'Copywritten', please?

The 'right' in copyright is to do with the right to copy. Not writing copy.

The name is not copywritten, it is copyright. Or copyrighted, if you really must.

Copywritten, or copyrighted? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23297194)

Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

PROTIP: When you say "copywrite" (and the past participle "copywritten"), and you're not talking about advertisement text [wikipedia.org] , that makes you look uneducated. Copyright statutes, such as Title 17, United States Code, consistently spell it "copyrighted", not "copywritten".

</national-socialist>

I only got this to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296380)

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Solution (1)

prxp (1023979) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296428)

If they took down the project based on an unfair DMCA claim, just file a counter claim [umsystem.edu] .

Re:Solution (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 6 years ago | (#23296986)

If only that did any good. The counterclaim permits, but does not force, the ISP to restore the content that was the subject of the takedown notice (although the ISP would have a safe harbor if it did). Not many ISPs are willing to "man up", and fold at any threat and would rather lose the business than deal with any potential legal hassles.

Whatever happen to "Do No Evil"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23296524)

after all, if Google can't afford lawyers, who can?

it sure seems like all corporations are corrupt

Was it really copyright or circumvention? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297164)

Folks - DMCA covers copyright, but also circumvention and reverse engineering stuff. I wonder if this complaint was specific to copyright?

Message from one of the founders (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297228)

From http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1134322&postcount=3789 [doom9.org]
"Also before the Slashdot crowd jumps in here.... Last week we received a complaint noting a DMCA violation on the Google Code project for "CoreAVC for Linux' (MPlayer). Under the terms of the DMCA we 'had' to act on that complaint and asked Google to take the project down.

Now... did we 'want' to do it? No and I am working with Alan (the project creator) now on what the complaint addressed so we can have Google restore the project."

I don't understand the DMCA completely, why would corecodec 'have' to act on it? Aren't they the ones making the complaint?

There should be a mirror... somewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23297300)

Think its time to start up anew... My hero search engine giant is dead.... damn you google!!! I'll be burning my Open Source programs T-shirt tomorrow in front of the world... and post the video on ... yea, youtube!!

for once stand up and have some balls!!

nmy... only hiding my name.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>