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!

CoreCodec Apologizes For CoreAVC Takedown

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the sorry-for-the-tactical-nuke dept.

Software 185

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."

cancel ×

185 comments

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

Will the Google project resume now? (2, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23309818)

That is the more important question. I doubt Google will take it up again, though.

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (3, Insightful)

klui (457783) | more than 6 years ago | (#23309874)

If I were the ones working on the project, I'd make sure I would not host it on Google.

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310146)

Where do you suggest they host it? HavenCo? That's probably a bit pricey, yesno?

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (2, Interesting)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310256)

Every ISP I've used has been courteous enough to relay takedown notices. If you have decent bandwidth, you could try running your own servers. Even if you can only handle serving images and HTML because your ISP throttles everything down to a crawl, there are plenty of non-Rapidshare file/imagedumps that you can use as mirrors and you can use torrents if you have to.

If you don't feel like doing all of that, you could always pick a host not in the US or a small host that will ask you to act on/respond to takedown notices, rather than complying instantly.

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (5, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310254)

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.

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (1)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310386)

Why does a takedown notice get more respect than the site owner? Because a person sending such a notice seems more sue-happy than the site owner?

Site owners can sue too. That is, unless when you sign up for hosting you agree that your site can be taken down for any reason.

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (4, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310488)

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.

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (2, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310916)

is there any such thing as bad publicity?

Yes. If your restaraunt is in the newspaper because someone died from salmonella poisoning and six more people are in the hospital, expect people to stay away in droves.

When someone in the press catches wind of your tryst with your secretary, expect to lose the next election. (Oops, this is slashdot; "loose" the next election - on an unsuspecting public)

Or you could just ask OJ Simpson [uncyclopedia.org] how that film career is going.

BTW, as everyone with a grandma knows there IS such a thing as a free lunch and modey does indeed grow on trees (ask a lumberjack or an orchard owner).

The "old sayings" only hold up in a limited set of circumstances. The "free lunch", for example, only means that when a supplier offers lunch, watch your wallet carefully.

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (4, Informative)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310554)

Why does a takedown notice get more respect than the site owner?
Because that's what the law says. When a host is served a DMCA takedown notice, they respond. Then the affected party can file a counter-notice to have the site put back up.

After that, it's up to the courts, if either party wants to take it that far.

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (5, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310752)

There are even sites out there to generate your own DMCA counterclaim quick and fast.
One such is: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html [cmu.edu] or here: http://www.ucmo.edu/dmca/counter.html [ucmo.edu]

People unfortunately probably go to lawyers first, a little bit of knowledge goes a long way.

However, DMCA misuse is something that can be sued for and withdrawing the already DMCA'd request doesn't lift that vulnerability in court...there is a provision for DMCA misuse.

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (2, Informative)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311798)

However, DMCA misuse is something that can be sued for and withdrawing the already DMCA'd request doesn't lift that vulnerability in court...there is a provision for DMCA misuse.
It's my understanding that a DMCA take down notice has to be signed "under penalty of perjury" in order be valid. So, being thrown in jail for perjury sounds like it would be one consequence for sending a false DMCA take down notice.

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 6 years ago | (#23312064)

I thought about what I posted a bit though, and since IANAL I don't know if it's different if the request is "withdrawn" since it wasn't officially withdrawn, it was more like the company saying "whoops, sorry" (as noted in the subheadline for the article about sorry for the nuke.

Wasn't there some part of DMCA that said like you can sue for DMCA misuse or abuse or something though?

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (1)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 6 years ago | (#23312218)

Wasn't there some part of DMCA that said like you can sue for DMCA misuse or abuse or something though?

I'm not sure but I would hope so. I was merely pointing out that you could also go after someone for perjury if they send a false DMCA take down notice. I imagine it doesn't matter if they withdraw the DMCA notice or not - damage has already been done.

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (3, Informative)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310862)

Why does a takedown notice get more respect than the site owner? Because a person sending such a notice seems more sue-happy than the site owner?

Site owners can sue too. That is, unless when you sign up for hosting you agree that your site can be taken down for any reason.
Except that the DMCA is specifically worded to screw Google and other hosting companies over if they don't take a "Shutdown Site Now, Think Later" position. I.e., if the DMCA complaints turn out to be true, and Google didn't shutdown first and think later, Google becomes liable for everything.

Brilliantly worded bit of kit there. It's like an anti-terrorism law that states "If you don't make a citizen's arrest, and it turns out that random Arabic/Mexican/Just-Not-White-Enough chap really is evil, you're liable for anything he does cause you COULD have stopped him."

Absolutely stupid idea, but hey, it's ""Intellectual Property" Law", leave your brain at the door.

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (2, Informative)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311308)

It's like an anti-terrorism law that states "If you don't make a citizen's arrest, and it turns out that random Arabic/Mexican/Just-Not-White-Enough chap really is evil, you're liable for anything he does cause you COULD have stopped him."
To make that actually parallel to the DMCA, you would have to add that if the random person says to you "I'm not a terrorist", you have to let them go and you aren't liable for anything they do.

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (2, Informative)

KiahZero (610862) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311952)

Actually, it's specifically worded to help Google... before the DMCA, Google would have been liable for intellectual property suits for anything they provided. The "safe harbor" provisions were a step forward for service providers. If you want something specifically worded to screw Google, look at the claim that Viacom has against YouTube, claiming that it's unfair they have to use the DMCA takedown notices for each infringing video.

The process is a good one, and it removes the need to make a judgment about whether or not the material infringes from the hosting provider. If a copyright holder files a takedown notice, you take the thing down. If the user responsible wants to claim there's no violation, you put the thing back up. If you're *really* certain there's no violation as the service provider, you keep it up and brace for lawsuit.

Re:Will the Google project resume now? (2, Informative)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311752)

Why does a takedown notice get more respect than the site owner? Because a person sending such a notice seems more sue-happy than the site owner?

Umm, I'm pretty sure it's because that's how the DMCA is written. I believe they are obligated under the law to respect a DMCA take down notice. This is a good example of how flawed the DMCA is - it puts the burden of proof on the accused. Of course, in order for a DMCA take down notice to be valid it has to be signed "under penalty of perjury" so if you do file an invalid DMCA take down notice then you've opened yourself up to some serious liability.

Ah, CoreAVC (4, Insightful)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 6 years ago | (#23309850)

And CoreCodec. The company that _seriously_ demanded online activation for a $10 video codec. Including dongeling it to your current hardware config.

Re:Ah, CoreAVC (1)

gunne (14408) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310018)

So?

Is that so bad? Shareware would probably not cover their development costs, and 10$ is a small sum most everybody would be able to afford...
Can't really see the problem with their approach.

Re:Ah, CoreAVC (4, Informative)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310236)

Yes, it is/was bad. It took time rather a long time (months) to get the whole process of activation more or less working. In the mean time, people were waiting for bugfixes and promised features, not understanding why it all was taking so long. Perhaps you can still get a glimpse of it all on the forums. As for development-costs, I don't actually think you can earn them this way. Some people will pay, most people will just try an alternative if paying/activating is too complicated. OEM Licensing is probably a better way to (a route which they also have taken) Last, codec is $14,95. There is a cheaper version, but that has no Interlace support among others, so pretty much useless in many circumstances.

Re:Ah, CoreAVC (2, Insightful)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310672)

CoreCodec really does treat their customers like shit. It's rather obvious at times that they want to license out their technology rather than sell it directly to consumers, meanwhile no one of note has been licensing their stuff. They're competent coders, don't get me wrong, CoreAVC has amazingly low CPU usage, but they're completely unable to run a business that deals with consumers. I have little doubt that that this is both a "sorry we got caught" and "we're genuinely sorry" situation; the former because they really don't want anyone jeopardizing future products, and the latter because once again no one was thinking when they enacted this.

I can only hope someone that actually knows how to interact with customers buys out the whole damn company, they're not getting any better on their own.

Dollar slide! (1)

nikanj (799034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311068)

Haven't you heard that $14.95 is the new $10!

Re:Ah, CoreAVC (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310660)

Don't forget the period of several months (!) during which they ACTIVELY REFUSED to sell anyone their codec.

Damage Control (4, Funny)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23309862)

While I always admire when a company admits they were wrong about something, I have to think that this is just massive damage control. Imagine what their inboxes looked like over this fiasco :-)

Re:Damage Control (3, Insightful)

PeterKraus (1244558) | more than 6 years ago | (#23309922)

Still, better than if they didn't apologise. I personally believe they are at least a bit honest in this..

Re:Damage Control (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23310802)

I'm sorry that you have sex with your hand.

Re:Damage Control (3, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#23309944)

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.

Re:Damage Control (5, Insightful)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 6 years ago | (#23309958)

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.

Mod parent up (2, Informative)

wrook (134116) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310304)

OK, not sure I agree with the wording...

But in case you are wondering, click on the link about Dan Marlin's response and read part of the thread where he (BetaBoy) responds to his customers.

Judge for yourself what kind of person he is...

Re:Damage Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23311988)

You're an idiot

Re:Damage Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23312234)

I don't think there is anything "ILLEGAL" (your caps) about his DMCA takedown notice, perhaps it is LIBELOUS, but not illegal. It is so unlikely that any freeware geek will pursue a claim of liability for something like this, you should just get over it.

I must say, you're use of colorful language and capital letters in public is so 'Insightful, Score: 5' --lol

Re:Damage Control (1)

quarterbuck (1268694) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310332)

I think CoreCodec CEO is a decent guy.
But overall, I think this move is stupid. First mistake was made when the lawyer sent out the DMCA notice when none should have been sent. The second (as far as CoreCodec goes) was made when the CEO went public with the information. The lawyer sends out the takedown notice under the pain of perjury - so b admitting that the notice was a lie, the lawyer can now be tried in court.

Re:Damage Control (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310378)

Mistakes aren't perjury. The lawyer believed the information was accurate.

Re:Damage Control (3, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311398)

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.

Re:Damage Control (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310550)

But overall, I think this move is stupid. First mistake was made when the lawyer sent out the DMCA notice when none should have been sent. The second (as far as CoreCodec goes) was made when the CEO went public with the information.

It's only stupid if CoreCodec continues to use that lawyer (possibly the same legal firm).

The lawyer sends out the takedown notice under the pain of perjury - so b admitting that the notice was a lie, the lawyer can now be tried in court.

Has that ever actually happened?

Re:Damage Control (1)

radish (98371) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311384)

It wasn't the lawyer who sent out the takedown, it was signed by the CEO. His first mistake was sending & signing a document like that without actually understanding what it said. His next mistake was publically admitting that he knew that the takedown notice was inappropriate and in fact he didn't have a claim.

Re:Damage Control (1)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 6 years ago | (#23312142)

That's probably why he paid for legal counsel; so he didn't have to understand what it said, he just listened to his lawyer.

That's kind of what most people do when their lawyer explains something to them and advises them on a course of action.

Re:Damage Control (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310460)

Wait a damned minute here. I have seen some companies push even harder when their inboxes fill up... can you say Streisand effect?

Whether they, as a company, are worth a damn does not really bother me but I do have respect for anyone that on making a mistake, does the right thing. Whether it's for saving face or not, it still is good to see them shout mea culpa and apologize.

Re:Damage Control (1)

Jarik_Tentsu (1065748) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310538)

While I always admire when a company admits they were wrong about something, I have to think that this is just massive damage control. Imagine what their inboxes looked like over this fiasco :-)
Agreed! I mean, a lot of companies/governments don't want to show any signs of weakness by admitting a mistake. Even if after that they regret doing it, they rarely pull back once it happens. I think this sign of 'modesty' is a good thing. IMO it attracts positive popularity. It must be a pride thing...

~Jarik

Re:Damage Control (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311276)

They're hoping to avoid a perjury prosecution, and unfortunately it looks like it's going to work.

Billable hours... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23309866)

So this whole thing was a private attorney trying to get a few more billable hours by sending bullshit DMCA notices?

Use == misuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23309920)

so that they won't use them in the future.


There; fixed that for you.

Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (5, Insightful)

baadger (764884) | more than 6 years ago | (#23309950)

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 [sourceforge.net] .

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (5, Informative)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 6 years ago | (#23309970)

I read about this deal yesterday, and yes, it appears that the codec is much better than what's available on Linus right now. It's apparently using hardware acceleration and multi-threaded programming. Ffdshow is supposed to come out with those features soon, though.

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310002)

the codec is much better than what's available on Linus
Linus was probably right not to name it after himself originally.

Would Freax have worked better? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310118)

Perhaps he should have called it Schroeder?

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23310392)

yeah, sure.

stop spreading BS, h264-hardware-acceleration is not even necessary on linux systems!
i can play 1080p-h264 + dts matroska rips with mythtv htpc and mplayer on athlon x2 4600+, nvidia 7600 GT with 50% cpu usage on both cores.
framerate smooth as butter.

windows operating systems and players must be doing something wrong here.
even for media stuff windows is on the decline, those glory virtualdub days are over.

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23310872)

I have P4-2400, nvidia 6600 and can't play some 720p files with mplayer on linux. I faster codec could really help.

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310886)

Your specs are considerably lower than the lowest I have seen playing bluray 1080p on Linux.

link [mythtv.org]

If you can fill in a gap on that table it would be great, since the best they have any AMD doing is a lower (half) bitrate 1080p. If a 4600+ can do better, it is info worth knowing.

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23310724)

It's apparently using hardware acceleration and multi-threaded programming.
Doesn't CoreAVC claim to be the fastest H.264 codec _not_ using hardware acceleration?

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23310838)

It's apparently using hardware acceleration
No.

and multi-threaded programming.
Yes.

CoreAVC is also faster than ffdshow (rather lavc) on just one core. CoreAVC does have some minor image quality problems though.

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (5, Informative)

Barny (103770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23309976)

Well, when decoding a 1920x1080 (1080p) image on a little bitty dual core AMD machine used as a media centre, you will see why :)

The ffmpeg decoder is awesome, it is a reference quality codec, it renders EVERY frame as good as it possibly can... which is not really how you want video, you want a usable frame rate FIRST.

As a customer of CoreCodec (both the windows h.264 multi threaded codec AND the symbian media player) I am glad its all sorted.

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310632)

Hell, VLC has troubles with 1080p H.264 MKV on my Dual Quad 3.2Ghz Early 2008 Mac Pro. Somehow I'm thinking this isn't lack of compute power issue but rather the decoder just sucking issue.

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23310806)

No, the problem is that the codec is too good. That is, the codec favors correctness and quality over speed, where CoreAVC and many other codecs take shortcuts to improve the framerate at the expense of quality and correctness.

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23311342)

> That is, the codec favors correctness and quality over speed

For H.264 there is no such choice. H.264 mandates _bit exact_ decoding. If it decodes to something different, it is not a H.264 decoder (strictly speaking). But apart from that, libavcodec/MPlayer/... have all the options to enable that kind of invalid hacks (fast, skiploopfilter,...), they just are disabled by default.

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (4, Informative)

FluffyWithTeeth (890188) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310004)

CoreAVC is incredibly fast; a machine which could barely handle 720p with libavcodec can probably manage two decode two 1080p videos at once. It also tends to introduce a lot of artifacting errors, but if you couldn't play the video at all it's probably an improvement. Personally I've just been confused as of late after installing Linux on this laptop. On windows libavcodec would decode 1080p h264 video no problem, but in linux mplayer fails miserably on 720p videos..

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310400)

It's probably the compiler or video driver.

This laptop bogs down trying to scale video up to full screen in software but coasts along showing little more than disk activity when using DirectX scaling. A decent video driver can make a huge difference.

sometimes decent is not good enough (2, Informative)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310006)

I have a 3-4 years old machine (not real multiprocessor, just hyperthreading, 1G memory).
When i play HD movies, VLC works perfectly on my Windows, Mplayer playback is jerky.
I prefer not to boot into Windows, but sometimes i have to.

Re:sometimes decent is not good enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23310060)

> VLC works perfectly on my Windows, Mplayer playback is jerky.

MPlayer has tons of options, especially on Windows the defaults are unlikely to be optimal.
Just in case you don't mind spending some time on it you should get MPlayer to be at least as fast as VLC IMO (though first make sure to use one of the more up-to-date "inofficial" builds or compile yourself).

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23310062)

as has been noted, coreavc is great on low end dualcore setups, but people having problems with mplayer where windows vlc shines can probably get a lot more out of their hardware. i can decode 1080p fine on an amd x2 3800, 1gb ram, nvidia 7800 using mplayer under linux. apparently the only decoder to harness multicore capabilities is coreavc, but setting mplayer to use two threads works rather well since one core handles the video and the other, i assume, handles the AC3 audio (or perhaps the smp kernel just splits things between the two in a slightly less efficient but workable way?)

One word: Speed (3, Informative)

pinkfloydhomer (999075) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310144)

CoreAVC is by _far_ the fastest H.264 software decoder on the planet. Something like twice as fast as the nearest competitor.

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23310518)

As a Windows user of CoreAVC, I can say it was a major improvement for me over the ff-codecs. I watch a lot of fansubbed anime, and the recent-year switch to h264 720p releases wasn't kind on my computer(P4, 2.4 GHz HT, 512 MB RAM, GF5600) for most releases. The h264 releases would always have bad stuttering and, equally annoyingly, the audio/video would always run out of sync. I don't remember how I found out about CoreAVC, but after I gave that a try, I had no more problems with those releases. Higher-quality or Full-HD releases are still very problematic though. Bottom line is, if you have a fast dual-core system, you might not really notice a difference - but if your system is stuck between new and very old, and you don't want to (or can't...) pay for better hardware, it's a worthwhile investment. -dgb

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23310576)

Performance-wise, it definitely is. I tried lots of codecs on Windows (ffdshow, x264, Quicktime) and none of them was able to pull off 1080p at 60 frames per second on my Core2Duo at 3GHz. Some commercial hardware accelerated players were able to keep up with the rate but looked quite awful in comparison (might be because my GeForce7900 is one generation too old for that to).

Then I tried CoreAVC and it showed my 1080p@60 test files flawlessly, with the CPU being at a nice 60% all the time.

(No, not in any way affiliated with CoreCodec, just a satisfied customer. Yes, those do exist.)

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (1)

mczak (575986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310732)

ffpmeg's decoder may be "decent", but compared to CoreAVC it has still a few (depending on the circumstances, very severe) drawbacks:
- it is slower
- it doesn't support multithreading very well, so a slower dual-core cpu might still be not fast enough because it can only load one core fully
- it doesn't support some of the more strange features of h.264, which are often used with HDTV (such as PAFF deinterlacing - print an error and segfault)
So yes, I can definitely see why some people would want to use CoreAVC in MPlayer etc. At least right now, I guess once ffmpeg fixes points 2 and 3 above, few people would probably care that CoreAVC might be better optimized, since ffmpeg would be "good enough" (with better multithreading it should be "fast enough" at least with common dual-core cpus probably).

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (1)

mczak (575986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310888)

btw I take that back that ffmpeg doesn't support PAFF interlacing - this was implemented sometime last year. Still, I get errors and segfaults with certain streams.

Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (1)

yuna49 (905461) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311584)

Yes, it appears it really is that much better. Browse any of the threads in the Playback Help forum at AnimeSuki [animesuki.com] . You'll see lots of people complaining that they couldn't play H.264 encodes on their current hardware platform without installing CoreAVC. This is especially a problem for files in the 720p format.

I was consistently unable to play 720p encodes on my P4 running Fedora with either mplayer or xine as the engine. My newer Pentium D doesn't have the same problems, though it chokes on 1080p encodes.

The other alternative to CoreAVC is upgrading to a faster computer.

DMCA working as intended (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23309988)

At least this segment of it, I'm not sure what else it contains.

1. If you post material online, someone can send a DMCA notice and have it instantly taken down. They must though state that legally and in good faith they have strong reason to believe they are copyright owners.

2. If you challenge it, you send a DMCA counternotice and the material is put back up. You must though state that legally and in good faith you either are the copyrightholder or its in public domain. By doing this you also have to reveal your name. Obviously if you are not willing to reveal your name, you can't counternotice.

(the only potential misuse I could see is if people have a good reason to post anonymously, like whistleblowers - anyone know of any use like that? Obviously this would however confirm that any material taken down is not falsified or the company could not claim copyright)

3. If both parties are in good faith, then obviously let the lawsuits commence. If one of the party was not in good faith - well, they can be smacked down very hard quite easily. It looks like CoreCodec just discovered they were not actually in good faith and are doing damage control.

Re:DMCA working as intended (2, Interesting)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310058)

Wow, a lucid post from an AC. I hope it's modded accordingly.

The only thing I'm not sure about is this quote from Martin:

"The DMCA does allow for reverse engineering for compatibility purposes and hence in the end no matter what the 'other points' are the DMCA takedown request was wrongly sent."
I don't really believe that is the case. It was my understanding that DMCA prohibited any reverse engineering, but IANAL.

Lucid, but incorrect. (2, Funny)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310108)

Wow, a lucid post from an AC. I hope it's modded accordingly.

-1 Astroturfing?

Re:DMCA working as intended (2, Informative)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310708)

Wow, a lucid post from an AC. I hope it's modded accordingly. The only thing I'm not sure about is this quote from Martin:

"The DMCA does allow for reverse engineering for compatibility purposes and hence in the end no matter what the 'other points' are the DMCA takedown request was wrongly sent."
I don't really believe that is the case. It was my understanding that DMCA prohibited any reverse engineering, but IANAL.
Yes, the DMCA allows reverse engineering as a very narrow exception to the anti-circumvention provisions (see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#f [harvard.edu] ).

However, I think it only applies to reverse engineering of a "technological measure" used to enforce copy protection. The DMCA doesn't single-handedly outlaw reverse engineering.

Re:DMCA working as intended (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 6 years ago | (#23312032)

It even allows for bypassing for the purpose of interoperability - which is why that clause is there to begin with.

Credit where credit is due. (5, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310088)

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.

Re:Credit where credit is due. (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311144)

I'm cutting them a small bit of slack- because it's an unusual thing to see a company DO that sort of thing. It doesn't get them a 'get out of jail free' card, though- what they did was quite a bit inexcusable.

Unfortunately for CoreCodec, they reached for the DMCA before actually finding out what was going on and whether or not what they claimed in the filing was even TRUE or not. They used the DMCA in an inappropriate way that smacked of quelling competition, even though they claim it wasn't that.

It's how they screwed up that's as much the problem as the what they screwed up on.

Re:DMCA working as intended (3, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311268)

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.

Re:DMCA working as intended (2, Informative)

radish (98371) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311442)

If you post material online, someone can send a DMCA notice and have it instantly taken down. They must though state that legally and in good faith they have strong reason to believe they are copyright owners.

No, not "strong reason to believe". By sending the takedown they are stating under penalty of perjury that they are the copyright holders. Read the letter [chillingeffects.org] , he says he personally downloaded the file(s) in question and verified that his copyright was being infringed. This is, however, impossible as he has since admitted nothing on that site actually did infringe his copyright. So he lied in the takedown notice.

As crappy as the DMCA may be, it is very clear that if you're sending a takedown you better be 110% sure you're in the right - because otherwise you are liable, no excuses. In this case it appears as if the resolution will be amicable, which is good, but the CodeCodec guy is lucky.

Hmm. Heh. (-1, Offtopic)

Emmettfish (573105) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310052)

Heehee.

Which is it? (4, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310124)

So which is it? Is it "sorry we did this", or "sorry we got caught?"

Re:Which is it? (1)

thue (121682) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310334)

"Sorry we committed perjury be sending a false DMCA takedown notice, please don't sue us"?

Perjury (3, Interesting)

Nuskrad (740518) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310182)

I may be wrong, but when making a DMCA notice don't you have to swear under penalty of perjury that it's correct? Can you just 'apologise' when you get caught sending out bad ones? Or do CoreCodec potentially face legal action now?

Re:Perjury (1)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310796)

I may be wrong, but when making a DMCA notice don't you have to swear under penalty of perjury that it's correct? Can you just 'apologise' when you get caught sending out bad ones? Or do CoreCodec potentially face legal action now?

You swear that 'on belief and in good faith' the material violates your copyright. Essentially, 'we think that it's a violation and we want it to stop'. Now, if you have a history of sending DMCA notices for things you don't own, well then you expose yourself to loosing on the good faith issue and are in a very bad position.

On a side note, this is all you have to swear to get any lawsuit started - if it's BS & gets in front of a judge, well people have been smacked hard for wasting a judges time. Countersuits for SLAPP violations include penalties for time, expense, punitive damages, etc.

Re:Perjury (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311230)

You swear that 'on belief and in good faith' the material violates your copyright.

Right, and that line of reasoning works with closed-source products. For open-source, there is *no* excuse, and their lawyer(s) should face sanctions.

Re:Perjury (1)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311460)

You swear under penalty of perjury that you own the copyright material you're posting the DMCA takedown about. There's no penalty if it turns out your copyright has nothing to with the material on the website.

The perjury section is to stop people sending out fake notices pretending they own Disney's material, and thus getting websites taken down in Disney's name. Disney can send out notices all day long about their own material, regardless of whether the DMCA target is a valid one or not.

This is why you should need a court order (2, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310366)

The reason this should go through court first is so there is an investigation as to whether or not the person is guilty of what is being said. Only then should you be able to be forced to take it down.

Sending a request to do so is another matter, but forced removal should be handled by court. Otherwise you are guilty until proven innocent.

Re:This is why you should need a court order (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310610)

Otherwise you are guilty until proven innocent.

But the huge majority of DMCA requests are probably from corporations against much smaller companies or individuals. In that situation then the corporation bribes...sorry, pays for....sorry, 'supports', more than the target, so surely it's obvious they were guilty? Such seems to be the way of capitalism and commercialism getting involved in democracy.

Re:This is why you should need a court order (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311124)

The reason this should go through court first is so there is an investigation as to whether or not the person is guilty of what is being said.

I'm pretty averse to involving the legal system unnecessarily. In this example, two private parties worked it out and moved on. Imagine the same scenario, except now the plaintiff faces penalties from a pissed-off judge if they admit they're wrong and want to drop their case. No, I think this worked exactly like it should.

Re:This is why you should need a court order (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23311432)

Um, when you're accusing someone of breaking the law, isn't "involving the legal system" exactly what you want to do? The DMCA allows this extra-judicial, guilt-assuming procedure as a matter of convenience. It's an outrageous situation that really shouldn't be defended.

Re:This is why you should need a court order (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311758)

It's an outrageous situation that really shouldn't be defended.

Oh, I totally agree with that. It just seems to me that the alternative is the same situation with judges and lawyers thrown in for good measure. That's about the only way I can think of to make it even worse.

Re:This is why you should need a court order (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311444)

No, I think this worked exactly like it should.
The content was offline. I do not call that working like it should.

Re:This is why you should need a court order (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311548)

The reason this should go through court first is so there is an investigation as to whether or not the person is guilty of what is being said. Only then should you be able to be forced to take it down. Sending a request to do so is another matter, but forced removal should be handled by court. Otherwise you are guilty until proven innocent.

I disagree. The DMCA takedown and "Safe Harbor" process is the one thing about the DMCA that's good. You have to fully understand it, though.

The way it works is that if a service provider immediately complies with the takedown request, they are granted "Safe Harbor" status, meaning they cannot be held accountable for the infringement. The party that put the content up, however, can respond with a counter-notice, and the service provider can then put the material back up but does not lose Safe Harbor status.

The beauty of this system is that infringements can be shut down without involving a court, but invalid takedown notices can be immediately reversed, again without involving a court (or even a lawyer -- there are free on-line counter-notice generators). Further, as long as the service provider complies with the notice and counter-notice in a timely fashion, they are completely safe from any infringement suit and can completely ignore any court proceedings that happen thereafter (unless given a court order to comply with).

The only part of this process that could be improved, IMO, is that the service provider is supposed to wait two weeks after receiving the counter-notice before putting the data back on-line. The purpose is to give the plaintiff a chance to file a lawsuit. If they do, they can send notice of the pending suit to the service provider, who should then NOT put the material back up, until the situation is resolved in court. I think the service provider should put the material back up immediately, and taking it down again should require an injunction.

You might think that this process lends itself to abuse, with people issuing takedown notices for material upon which they don't hold copyright, but there's a protection against that. Notices and counter-notices are both made under penalty of perjury, and they're required to indicate that the issuer has a reasonable belief that the complaint is valid. If you issue a bogus takedown notice, you can be prosecuted for perjury.

I think that's why CoreAVC was so quick to apologize and is back-pedaling so hard... because their invalid notice could get at least the individual who signed the notice prosecuted for perjury. The max penalty for that is something like $10,000 and a couple years in prison. Not pleasant.

Re:This is why you should need a court order (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 6 years ago | (#23312018)

I disagree. The DMCA takedown and "Safe Harbor" process is the one thing about the DMCA that's good. You have to fully understand it, though.

The way it works is that if a service provider immediately complies with the takedown request, they are granted "Safe Harbor" status, meaning they cannot be held accountable for the infringement. The party that put the content up, however, can respond with a counter-notice, and the service provider can then put the material back up but does not lose Safe Harbor status.


Until the objecting party counters with a letter saying "I'm gonna sue". Then the provider has to take it down again or lose his safe harbor. That takedown is permanent until a judge says otherwise. And the case (if it is even initiated -- nothing in the DMCA actually requires the suit to go forward even if the objecting party says they will sue) could take years. It amounts to an automatic preliminary injunction outside the judicial process.

Further, the safe harbor -- without a takedown provision -- existed prior to the DMCA, in case law.

Re:This is why you should need a court order (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23312036)

I disagree. The DMCA takedown and "Safe Harbor" process is the one thing about the DMCA that's good. You have to fully understand it, though.

I disagree with your disagreement.

The way it works is that if a service provider immediately complies with the takedown request, they are granted "Safe Harbor" status, meaning they cannot be held accountable for the infringement.

Service providers act as and have most of the powers of common carriers. Why should they be held accountable for one of their customer's infringements anyway? They should be just as immune to legal issues for hosting copyrighted materials as the phone company is when I sing "happy birthday" over the phone.

The party that put the content up, however, can respond with a counter-notice, and the service provider can then put the material back up but does not lose Safe Harbor status.

So, as in this case, perfectly legal content can be removed at the whim of, well anyone, temporarily disrupting its availability. It's like if I thought your art gallery was violating pornography laws I could go remove them from your gallery, legally, until such a time as you made a counter claim and waited a few weeks. How is this a good thing for anyone?

The beauty of this system is that infringements can be shut down without involving a court...

I consider that a violation of due process. If I can restrict your free speech, even temporarily without involving the courts, that is not a good thing.

Further, as long as the service provider complies with the notice and counter-notice in a timely fashion, they are completely safe from any infringement suit...

Which as common carriers they should be safe from anyway.

You might think that this process lends itself to abuse, with people issuing takedown notices for material upon which they don't hold copyright, but there's a protection against that.

There is no protection from that. There are repercussions for that, but if you have enough money those repercussions are fairly weak. If you care more about knocking down some offering temporarily, it allows you to abuse the system.

I guess I don't see how you can argue that a law which just resulted in a completely legal software offering being made unavailable because of false claims from one of their competitors is a good thing. What's wrong with actually requiring them to prove their case in court BEFORE the ISP is legally obligated to remove the content... you know like our legal system has required for every other form of media for the last hundred years.

This whole thing is emblematic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23310478)

... of the use of the word 'takedown': a hyper-inflated neologism borrowed from police terminology when the two words 'take' and 'down' just don't have the modern, aggressive, IP-violation-is-as-bad-as-assault feel.

I didn't like it when Shimomura and Markoff used it (not much more legitimately) as the title of their two-handed-circle-jerk/book about Mitnick, and I like it even less in this stupidly aggrandised field of threatening-letter-writing.

Kudos to them (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23310536)

Because in this generally cynical and hostile atmosphere there's rarely a chance to add anything positive ...

I say well done chaps.

You fucked up. You know it. You're not too proud and arrogant to say so.

If only companies like Sony BMG had the good manners and humility.

This doesn't make any sense (5, Informative)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 6 years ago | (#23310868)

The DMCA takedown notice [chillingeffects.org] that they sent says:

We have directly verified by downloading the file from the Site provided by Google Inc. that the file does include CoreCodec's copyrighted Software. ...
Respectfully,
[private], CEO CoreCodec, Inc.

So according to this, the CEO has legally stated that his company downloaded the software and confirmed the violation. But today, he says it was just an overzealous legal department, and no such download happened. In that case, he signed a letter making legal statements that he knew were false.

If I ran this project, I would not be satisfied by an apology posted in a forum. They sent a legal statement and that requires a legal reply. I would continue as the DMCA stipulates, stating that the project does not infringe. I think I'd also be looking for a few lawyers to get fired. And the CEO needs to be quaking in his boots with the fact that his signature is on a legal notice that is a complete lie.

Why so harsh? They apologized, right? Because these stories happen all the time and I'm sick of companies getting away with it. If you send a legally binding letter with your signature on it, forcing someone to take down their web site, invoking a legal process - then you damn well better be sure that you were in the right. If we let this go, then the procedure becomes:

1. Company sends take down notice
2. Alleged infringer has to prove that they aren't infringing
3. Company allows them to put the project back up

That's not fair. That means any corporation can take down any site, any time, anywhere, with no fear of legal reprisal. That's not how the DMCA works and we need to stop them from using it that way. The DMCA is not carte-blanche to shut down web sites.

Re:This doesn't make any sense (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311466)

You're absolutely right. Hang them out to dry as an example to others.

I say attack the DMCA (2, Insightful)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311908)

I totally agree with what you are saying, but it kind of assumes that the DMCA is legitimate, and that only the *abuses* of it are illegitimate. The problem is, the law was seeminly designed to be abused. The whole concept of a takedown letter means that if someone accuses someone else of a violation of law, they are to be presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent. That just turns 200+ years of American legal doctrine, embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, completely on it's head, in a very bad way.

In this case, we have a company that made a mistake. Yes, you are correct that they swore to something that couldn't have been true, by their own *later* admission, but they did quickly correct the mistake. I think that means something. They also then proceeded to work with the guy who maintains CoreAVC-for-linux to increase it's capability/compatibility, and they are talking about releasing official builds (gStreamer Plug-in, library, etc) for Linux.

I know there are those among us who believe all proprietary software is unethical/evil, and they are entitled to their opinions, but I really don't think there is any *real* benefit to be gained here from crucifying a company that, overall, appears to want a friendly relationship OpenSource/Free Software developers and users. I say save your ire for the idiots in Congress who sponsored and voted for the DMCA, and for companies that maliciously abuse the DMCA and don't repent.

Re:I say attack the DMCA (1)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 6 years ago | (#23312332)

Wrong. They do not have to prove them innocent. They merely have to state that they are innocent. There's a huge difference there.

Aside from that, I see your point, but you have to admit the other way things would have gone, ie: Google, itself, would have been libel in case of an infringement would make just about every single hosting company close up shop over night, or at least increase their monthly fee by an order of magnitude or two just so they could afford the staff and legal counsel to constantly peruse the files put on their servers, and even then it would be an incredibly risky venture.

No, no, without the DMCA, I don't see the internet working nearly as well as it does now, if at all - not unless everyone owned their own servers and hosted them out of their own homes.

Re:This doesn't make any sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23312324)

It may not be fair, but you just outlined how the DMCA works. That is how it is written. The only part of a claim that can bite the filer is if they don't in fact hold copyright (or are an authorized agent of the copyright holder) for the work infringement is being claimed on. There is no requirement to verify that the copyrighted work is indeed being made available and no penalty for filing a notice which is not substantially true (again referring to the allegations, not to the copyright). To slightly correct your sequence:

1. Company sends take down notice
2. Material must be taken down
3. Alleged infringer can counterclaim which allows the material to be put back up
4. That is it unless the plaintiff takes it to court

Notice it is impossible to avoid step 2 whether the claim is valid or not.

The law is entirely one sided and decidedly not fair. But that's what you get when laws are bought by the highest bidder. The DMCA is the best/worst law that money can buy. It criminalizes bypassing technological controls, whether effective or not, and the courts are unwilling to rule on this. I wish I had the citation handy but where there was a ruling a judge chose to interpret the DMCA as meaning you could develop the knowledge of how to defeat technological mechanisms yourself and use that knowledge -- but you could not provide it to others or obtain it from others. And then had the audacity to claim that this effectively protected the rights of the property holder (believe it or not when you buy a DVD you *own* that disk and legally can make copies of it without limit so long as it is not distributed, broadcast, etc. -- although pushing the point and having a 1000 copies of one title is difficult to demonstrate a non-infringing intent)

What they are really saying.... (1)

jskline (301574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23311644)

What they are really saying is that they've already spoken with their legal team to find out what steps are needed to cover their asses in case of a backlash of re-percussive actions that can result. More lawyer mumbo-jumbo again.

I am loosing trust in all lawyers. They're dirty. Unclean. And unfortunately in many elected positions in government. No wonder my constitution has become so polluted...
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>