Google Pulls Open Source CoreAVC Project Over DMCA Complaint

rippe77 writes "Google has taken down the open-source project CoreAVC for Linux due to a DMCA complaint. The CoreAVC codec is a commercial high-definition H.264 DirectShow filter for windows provided by CoreCodec Inc.. The CoreAVC for Linux project provided various patches for Linux applications (mplayer, MythTV, xine) to use these DirectShow decoder filters in Linux. The takedown is quite controversial, as the CoreAVC project did not provide any copyrighted material — only the means to use the DirectShow filters in Linux." (The takedown notice is not yet up at Chilling Effects, but Google's page has a link that will take you there when it is.)

Where Else?

[TubeSteak]

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

I figured this might happen.

[Zombie Ryushu]

The DMCA is starting to rear one of its real intent. Its use of takedown notices to suppress Linux and other OSS operating systems ability to get advanced technology because if the OSS OSes gain traction they could lose the control they have over multimedia and users could regain fair use rights.

Hopefully, this project made it to the mplayer people in Hungary, or PLF. So it will still be availible.

Re:I figured this might happen.

[maxume]

That's insane.

Re:Where Else?

[smittyoneeach]

As long as people continue to want entities like the US Fed, the EU, and the UN to solve all of their problems, we can expect more, not less, crappy legislation.
Concentrated power makes manipulation too easy.

Mirror of project outside US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a mirror of the project outside the US?

Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[hcmtnbiker]

Pretty simple really. All they had to do was give it a name more like "MPEG-4 AVC for Linux" and they would have been ok. It's really pretty simple, they DONT have the right to use their name in a product that isn't truly related to anything the CoreCodec company.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Where Else?

[poetmatt]

Actually no, most countries do not use or follow a DMCA law. Israel for example, outright refuses it, as it allows abuse in the form of takedowns. Israel has like a "notify 3x before takedown" type scenario.

Was it really copyright or circumvention?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:File a counter notice

[tepples]

If the content were that important to a business, it would probably make sense to pay $10/year for a domain, and roughly $20/month for hosting.

The $20/mo hosting provider still has to take down the content for two weeks to keep its own safe harbor under the DMCA or foreign counterparts.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[_Sprocket_]

They are issued under penalty of perjury. So if you just don't like the name because you think it violates your trademark, issuing a takedown notice is not a good idea.

While this is true - I've yet to see any of the numerous questionable uses of the DMCA lead to charges of perjury. Have I missed something?

Re:File a counter notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Google does have 24 hours to take the offending item down.

Re:Core codec is based on open source, they lie

[Frenchman113]

This here is what we call a logical fallacy. You propose a comparison between two things that are not alike and ask us to determine which is better. In this case, no comparison exists because CoreAVC is a decoder and x264 is an encoder. Maybe you should read a little bit on what each are? Like what x264 [wikipedia.org] and CoreAVC [wikipedia.org] are?

Now, assuming that you meant to ask "what advantage does CoreAVC hold over other (free) decoders such as FFMPEG [wikipedia.org]?", the answer is as follows:
CoreAVC is much faster in single-threaded operation than FFmpeg, especially in the deblocking routines. It supports interlaced H.264 which FFmpeg did not until recently support. It has much more efficient multi-threaded routines than FFmpeg. All of these matters because 1920x1080i/p H.264 videos such as HDTV broadcasts in some countries as well as Blu-Ray/HD-DVDs are being increasingly common. In order to play these videos using FFmpeg, one would need something like a 3GHz Core 2 Quad whereas a much lower-clocked Core 2 Duo is sufficient with CoreAVC.