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!

Adobe Uses DMCA On Protocol It Promised To Open

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the by-some-definitions-of-open dept.

Censorship 203

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

cancel ×

203 comments

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

Copyright law? (5, Interesting)

pieterh (196118) | more than 5 years ago | (#28052965)

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

Re:Copyright law? (0)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053067)

"rtmpdump" is so clearly similar to "RTMP" that it infringes on Adobe's copyright of the name.

Re:Copyright law? (3, Informative)

baadger (764884) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053249)

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

Re:Copyright law? (2, Insightful)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053323)

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

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

Re:Copyright law? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28053467)

Um, no, general hatred of what lawyers and money can do in the legal system aside, you can't win a copyright suit over a product name no matter how good your lawyer is.

Now nothing says you can't bring the suit, and if the other guy chooses to settle that's another matter. But inventing flaws in the already-flawed IP system (such as pretending that a name could be interpreted as a copyrightable work when that's been explicitely forbidden since forever)? Come on.

Re:Copyright law? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28053275)

Adobe's copyright of the name.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Is "trademark" the word you're looking for?

Re:Copyright law? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053371)

They should call it rtm-dump.

That'll totally fool them!

Re:Copyright law? (4, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053077)

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

Re:Copyright law? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28053363)

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

Re:Copyright law? (4, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053537)

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

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

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

Re:Copyright law? (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053087)

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

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

Re:Copyright law? (3, Informative)

pieterh (196118) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053739)

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

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

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

Re:Copyright law? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053939)

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

  • Design patent: I couldn't find any. I searched uspto.gov for patents whose assignee is "Elorg" or "Tetris" and 0 results. On the other hand, I found a few patents assigned to Nintendo, such as the cylinder mode of Pokemon Puzzle League.
  • Trademark: That's why clones are named differently.
  • Copyright: That's why clones use different decorations around the playfield and different textures on the blocks, if they texture the blocks at all.

copyright != patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28053783)

It's funny how you answer a question about copyright law with a link to a site that talks about patents.

Do you have anything, you know, *useful* to add to this discussion, or are you only interested in demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension?

patentarcade.com != all patents all the time (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053845)

It's funny how you answer a question about copyright law with a link to a site that talks about patents.

The site talks about patents. The same site also talks about copyrights. Did you click the link, or did you just read the domain name and assume that the site talks only about patents and not about copyrights?

Re:Copyright law? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28053191)

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

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

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

Re:Copyright law? (5, Informative)

rmcd (53236) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053265)

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

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

Re:Copyright law? (3, Insightful)

cruff (171569) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053427)

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

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

Re:Copyright law? (5, Funny)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053539)

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

Re:Copyright law? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053769)

It's not about what it could be used for but what it's intended to be used for.

On this basis, this takedown request is bogus but there's no penalty for sending a takedown request if there's a plausible belief that it's legitimate.

Re:Copyright law? (1)

jdoverholt (1229898) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054039)

but I intend to use my brain to circumvent a protection mechanism.

Re:Copyright law? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054509)

Is that its primary purpose, and are you importing it, offering it to the public, providing or otherwise trafficing in your brain?

If the answer is yes, there are other parts of copyright that would make you personally liable for infringement.

Re:Copyright law? (3, Interesting)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054129)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Copyright law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28055123)

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

no, if it had adobe code, they would be be sued.

Re:Copyright law? (4, Informative)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053359)

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

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

Re:Copyright law? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053727)

Anti-Circumvention falls down if there is substantial non-infringing use.

Re:Copyright law? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053785)

True, but you can still send a legitimate(ish) takedown request. There's the "penalty of perjury" bit, but unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they knew this was totally non-infringing, there's no case.

Re:Copyright law? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054061)

Unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they knew there was no substantial non-infringing use, there's no case. Of course, since "reasonable" and "substantial" are both open to question, the real question is, how much money did you bring with you? And how much credit have you got?

Re:Copyright law? (1)

pieterh (196118) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053829)

Are you saying the open source version was taken down for not implementing DRM restrictions, in other words for having missing functionality?

I do understand the point about anti-circumvention but does this extend to obliging that clean re-implementations implement the same restrictions as closed ones?

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

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

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

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

Re:Copyright law? (5, Interesting)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054227)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Copyright law? (1)

neomunk (913773) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054527)

They way you describe it it really sounds like the DMCA can be used to create an Evil Bit standard backed by the full power of legislature...

Re:Copyright law? (1)

PetriBORG (518266) | more than 5 years ago | (#28055141)

They way you describe it it really sounds like the DMCA can be used to create an Evil Bit standard backed by the full power of legislature...

That is exactly what the DMCA is for, the creation of the evil bit - see HDTV's magic flag bullshit, or in this case, a stream flag or whatever. Its all really stupid because ultimately displayable content is copyable and thats what they refuse to realize.

Re:Copyright law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28055121)

But is it circumventing to re-implement something without the controlling mechanism? There's nothing to circumvent since the product didn't ever have the "technological measure" in the first place.

Re:Copyright law? (3, Insightful)

blitzkrieg3 (995849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054401)

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

I fail to see a functional difference

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

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

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

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

Re:Copyright law? (1)

blitzkrieg3 (995849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054249)

It's not copyright law, it's the anti-circumvention provision. The reference RTMP implements various restrictions that the content provider can specify, for instance, marking it as streaming only.

Presumably there could still be some open rtmp implemenations that don't allow you to download streaming only content. If that's true, then it's possible that Adobe will make good on their promise to open the protocol to other projects like gnash. As long they make it more than trival to download streaming only content, they are in the clear.

IANAL, and I still find this turn of events disgusting and the DMCA despicable.

Re:Copyright law? (3, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053613)

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

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

http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php [thepiratebay.org]

Re:Copyright law? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054077)

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

Said spineless person may not have the time or money to fight a team of well paid lawyers with all the time in the world.

Re:Copyright law? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053631)

I would assume that

1.) They claim copyright on the spec.
2.) They thus claim that whatever was done to reverse-engineer the spec violated the DMCA.

Re:Copyright law? (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054319)

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

DMCA against Sourceforge? You know, the one with the mirrors in 13000 different countries. Good luck taking it down.

Re:Copyright law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28055033)

13000 different countries

I didn't know there were 13 thousand countries. I thought the number was around 200.

Re:Copyright law? (1)

Shagg (99693) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054571)

It can't. The open source implementation may or may not count as a circumvention tool, but it clearly is not infringing on Adobe's copyrights, so a DMCA takedown is inappropriate. But, since companies routinely abuse DMCA takedown notices against things that are not under their copyright, and the government looks the other way, they continue to do so.

Unimportant (was:Copyright law?) (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054663)

The important thing is Adobe has more lawyers than you, and can bankrupt you from legal bills alone.

Ah, Open Screen (3, Informative)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28052983)

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

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

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

Re:Ah, Open Screen (2, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053301)

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

Re:Ah, Open Screen (2, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053429)

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

Re:Ah, Open Screen (1)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053847)

Open-source has a very strict definition from OSI.
It is actually *more* restrictive than free software, unlike what most people believe.

Open-source implies free software, but free software doesn't imply open-source.

Ah, Open Your Wallet (2, Funny)

Nick Driver (238034) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053583)

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

So much for being open-source friendly... (5, Insightful)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28052997)

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

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

Re:So much for being open-source friendly... (5, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053193)

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

It needs an easy to use, artist friendly IDE tool

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

The plugins for art are a joke really.

Re:So much for being open-source friendly... (1)

Quantumstate (1295210) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054679)

But conversely the flash IDE is horrible for coding. It feels like it was designed for graphic design with a bit of coding support stuck in afterwards. In the default setup the text editing area is too small and the debugger is terrible. It is hard to make it throw an error. Back when I tried it a couple of years ago it would not error when I tried accessing a property of an object which did not exist. I just moved to the open source compiler (mtasc) and a decent external text editor for all of the code.

Not entirely correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28054719)

You're not entirely correct. You may be right for the banner advertisements and perhaps even for the browser games, although creating most those involves significant programming in itself so I doubt that. But Flash is used nowadays mostly for things like YouTube, and it is used because it provides streaming in-browser video in a format that cannot be ripped by the average user. It's that simple.

Re:So much for being open-source friendly... (2, Interesting)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053667)

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

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

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

Re:So much for being open-source friendly... (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053863)

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

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

For my money, SVG is (currently) the real hope for a flash killer. It is open, it has momentum, it is original and better in many ways. Plus, it isn't limited to a beginner's language.

On the down side, it *is* XML :/

Re:So much for being open-source friendly... (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054397)

What SVG needs is a compiler that will convert the XML to something much more optimized.

Re:So much for being open-source friendly... (1)

demachina (71715) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054299)

The interesting thing here is this instantly elevated the fame of rtmpdump and the tools to rip Flash streams. Many more people will now have increased awareness of there existence, go out of there way to cache copies of them, distribute it all over the planet, etc. This is the forbidden fruit dilemma. By trying to stamp out the fire Adobe just turned it in to a wild fire. It also just highlights how completely not open "Open" Screen is.

The /. community really needs to band together and push harder with the help of Apple and Google hopefully to eliminate Adobe's near monopoly on web video. It is totally wrong for one company to have a monopoly on this now critical web infrastructure. I could care less about Flash doing ads and stupid 2D games, but it absolutely needs to be wiped off the face of the earth as the defacto web video player, because Adobe is going to A) abuse their increasing monopoly in web video B) totally fail in providing Flash plugins for embedded devices that have browser plugins now, netbooks, phones, TV's etc. FlashLite is just a joke and Open Screen is no where to be seen a full year after they announced it, it was pure vaporware.

Will we get to see the request? (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053085)

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

Re:Will we get to see the request? (3, Funny)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053149)

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

Re:Will we get to see the request? (2, Informative)

Misch (158807) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053773)

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

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

Re:Will we get to see the request? (1)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053803)

Under the law, SourceForge is compelled to honor the request to remove the user's content unless and until the takedown letter is contested by the user. If the user contests the notice (basically sending a formal letter stating "Nuh-uh"), SourceForge can put the content back up. If Adobe then proceeds to litigation or files a criminal complaint, a judge might order SourceForge to pull the content, or not.

This is of course my layman's understanding of the law, not legal advice.

Re:Will we get to see the request? (1)

asdfndsagse (1528701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053989)

your should also realize that sourceforge is the owner of slashdot. This potential CoI should have been stated in the lead. Sourceforge does not want to give up its immunity, however it should at least make note that the takedown was due to the DMCA, rather than just saying "Invalid project"

http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtmpdump/ [sourceforge.net]

Re:Will we get to see the request? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28054949)

really. you expect a free isp to hire a lawyer and stand in front of you?

I'm a hosting ISP and if there's a problem with one my (paying) customers' enemies, I tell them good luck and get out of the way. Not my problem.

Why did they think they could do this? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28053097)

Well, duh! Saying that a protocol will be opened at a later date does not in any way give third parties permission to violate its copyright!

red5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28053183)

http://www.osflash.org/red5

Seriously, a very good implementation of the non-encrypted protocols complete with samples. And notice that packages like dimdim uses red5 for flash videoconferencing.

Plus for Theora (2, Insightful)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053257)

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

Re:Plus for Theora (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053375)

SourceForge is based and hosted in USA, so they have to follow USA laws.

Re:Plus for Theora (2, Insightful)

MrMr (219533) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053441)

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

Re:Plus for Theora (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053503)

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

SourceForge, Inc. is headquartered in Mountain View, California, USA [sourceforge.com] .

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

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

Re:Plus for Theora (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054559)

now I think standard way of video streaming (based on Theora) is *definetly* needed

You clearly don't think very well. Theora is shit. (Vorbis, on the other hand, is very nice.) When you have an alternative that is actually competitive, then you can talk about what standards are "definetly" needed.

Re:Plus for Theora (2, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054767)

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

Anyone know where to find rtmpdump 1.6? (4, Informative)

jdb2 (800046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053385)

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

jdb2

Re:Anyone know where to find rtmpdump 1.6? (1)

jdb2 (800046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053477)

You get get the

"You can get the" that is. ;)

Re:Anyone know where to find rtmpdump 1.6? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28053857)

http://www.megashare.com/935955

Re:Anyone know where to find rtmpdump 1.6? (1)

CaptSolo (899152) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054703)

http://www.megashare.com/935955

That's a great find, thanks.

Not surprising. It was in the license (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28053511)

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

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

Re:Not surprising. It was in the license (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28054459)

license != law, so why was a law used to enforce something that isn't a law?

Re:Not surprising. It was in the license (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28054539)

Wait a second. Is that really saying that the open specification does not include the security measures that are required in order to not violate the license of the specification?

"You may have this cookie. But if you eat it, we'll sue you."

Re:Not surprising. It was in the license (1)

durjakebe (1560199) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054643)

As I understand it, it's saying that the open specification makes no claim that using the specification will allow you to access content provider X's content. It also says you are free to use the DRM parts of the spec to protect your own content, and that others cannot reverse engineer or otherwise circumvent it.

Adobe's broken, Fox it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28053517)

We need a better alternative to Adobe PDF Reader on Windows if this is how Adobe behaves.
Adobe PDF is only popular beacause it is an open standard.

Re:Adobe's broken, Fox it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28053635)

This has nothing to do with PDF. Adobe also makes Photoshop, why don't you comment on that too?

Re:Adobe's broken, Fox it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28053755)

No, that's grand. I use GIMP.

Inaccurate summary (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053527)

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

where is DMCA valid? (3, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053747)

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

alternate sf.net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28054201)

That's a brilliant idea :)

Remind of sites that host articles that are taken off wikipedia. Also makes one think of WikiLeaks, as a site which hosts content that some may want to see removed.

And the lesson is... (4, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053757)

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

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

I wish the project would post Adobe's letter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28053781)

Adobe has got to be somehow complaining that they actually are a copyright holder of the code itself, i.e. that rtmpdump is a derived work or contains some code written by Adobe. Nothing else makes sense, unless the takedown notice was just intended as intimidation, like Apple's fraudulent looks-like-a-dmca-notice-but-isn't letter to people who try to talk to iPods.

Get It While It's Hot (4, Informative)

blitzkrieg3 (995849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053821)

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

get-flash-videos [googlecode.com]
index of rtpdump-1.3a [silfreed.net] , including source rpms
download [linuxcentre.net] page for getiplayer
linux/unix tarball [linuxcentre.net]

Re:Get It While It's Hot (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28053937)

Re:Get It While It's Hot (1)

blitzkrieg3 (995849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054071)

awesome, good find.

Re:Get It While It's Hot (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054691)

Thanks, grabbed this as well.

Re:Get It While It's Hot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28055043)

1.6:
http://www.megashare.com/935955

just about as good as 1.5[a] but fixes a timestamp handling bug

Re:Get It While It's Hot (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054447)

Thank you, Good Sir. Grabbed.

Re:Get It While It's Hot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28054523)

get-iplayer is not under danger, though.

Most probably it is rtmpdump (due to them implementing RTMPE protocol recently) and it is difficult if possible at all to get the source of its latest version (they say there was v1.6).

Would be great if someone could point to the source of v1.6 (version 1.5a can be found in some places on the net)

Re:Get It While It's Hot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28054979)

Source for v1.6 can be found here:

http://www.megashare.com/935955 [megashare.com]

chillingeffects? (3, Informative)

asdfndsagse (1528701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28053903)

The project is down here [sourceforge.net] google cache still up.

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

Open? (3, Funny)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054029)

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

Re:Open? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28054471)

Open as in the hole that Adobe is digging for themselves. They don't have a single irreplaceable product. The only reason they still exist is that no one finds them too annoying yet.

Further evidence that Adobe is Evil (3, Insightful)

ElmoGonzo (627753) | more than 5 years ago | (#28054375)

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

the Dominate/Manipulate Consumer Act: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28054445)

I would just like to say that the Dominate/Manipulate COnsumer Act is a conspiracy against users and developers of open/free software. It was no doubt bought and paid for by corporations and groups like the MPAA. That is why I call this the land of digital oppression. I can't even watch my own freaking DVDs.

Backup of rtmpdump-1.6 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28054867)

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

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

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

Now I am furious (2, Insightful)

hubert.lepicki (1119397) | more than 5 years ago | (#28055083)

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

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>