Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software Businesses Google The Internet United States

CoreCodec Apologizes For CoreAVC Takedown 185

Posted by kdawson
from the sorry-for-the-tactical-nuke dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CoreCodec Apologizes For CoreAVC Takedown

Comments Filter:
  • by jkrise (535370) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @04:32AM (#23309818) Journal
    That is the more important question. I doubt Google will take it up again, though.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by klui (457783)
      If I were the ones working on the project, I'd make sure I would not host it on Google.
      • by argent (18001)
        Where do you suggest they host it? HavenCo? That's probably a bit pricey, yesno?
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Nullav (1053766)
          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 tak
      • by jimicus (737525) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @06:18AM (#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.
        • by dnoyeb (547705)
          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.
          • by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @07:05AM (#23310488) Journal
            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: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by sm62704 (957197)
              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
              • 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.

                Yeah, right. There's a restaurant in Stone Mountain, GA imaginatively called "Asian Buffet" that recently got shut down for scoring about a 20 on its health inspection. This was reported in the local newspaper (Atlanta Journal-Constitution). It subsequently reopened, and guess what? People are flocking to it again in droves! Obviously, nobo

            • This whole drama seems manufactured to get attention for another *yawn* codec.

              Yeah, I tend to agree - CoreAVC is becoming less important by the day. A system running a modern CPU doesn't really need CoreAVC - on the windows front FFDShow works fine and its counterpart on linux should be just as good.

              I've played a lot of HD-DVD and BLU-RAY h264 movies on my PC and the only time FFDShow on a 3GHz cpu was not sufficient was some whacked out DTS demo disk - don't ask me why an audio demo disc had intense video (just logos flying around) but its been the only disk out of hundreds that F

          • by Goaway (82658) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @07:13AM (#23310554) Homepage

            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.
            • by poetmatt (793785) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @07:43AM (#23310752) Journal
              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: (Score:3, Informative)

                by mysqlrocks (783488)

                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.
                • by poetmatt (793785)
                  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?
                  • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by Sancho (17056) *
                  The bit that has the purjury penaltiy is strictly a statement saying that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright which is allegedly being infringed. This provides for damages against me for filing a takedown notice against Slashdot for one of your comments. It does not provide damages against me for filing a false notice, as long as its my work (or my client's) that I'm claiming was infringed.
                • by Kjella (173770)

                  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.

                  No. You are sharing a work A. I think it to be identical to my work B. I state, under penalty of perjury, that I'm the copyright holder of B. Nothing more, nothing less as not even the "good faith" part is covered by the perjury clause.

                  What you're looking for is section f):

                  (f) Misrepresentations. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section
                  (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
                  (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
                  shall be lia

          • by _KiTA_ (241027) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @07:58AM (#23310862) Homepage

            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: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Dragonslicer (991472)

              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: (Score:3, Informative)

              by KiahZero (610862)
              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
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by mysqlrocks (783488)

            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 a

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by mcmonkey (96054)

            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?

            Because that's the law. Yes, it's stupid. It's a stupid law.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by multisync (218450)
            My understanding of the process is the site owner files a counter notice and the ISP is obliged to put the site back up. It is then up to the courts to decide who committed perjury.
  • Uhrrr.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by theM_xl (760570) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @04:40AM (#23309840)
    It's already back up, you know. http://code.google.com/p/coreavc-for-linux/ [google.com]
  • Ah, CoreAVC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by imsabbel (611519) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @04:42AM (#23309850)
    And CoreCodec. The company that _seriously_ demanded online activation for a $10 video codec. Including dongeling it to your current hardware config.
    • by EdZ (755139)
      Don't forget the period of several months (!) during which they ACTIVELY REFUSED to sell anyone their codec.
    • by karmatic (776420)
      Including dongeling it to your current hardware config.
      Actually, it's tied to the windows product ID. Re-install windows, and the old serial number still works just fine.

      This is designed to be "unique enough" that users can't copy all over the place, and was a direct response to the codec being used in large numbers of "Codec Packs".
  • by dreamchaser (49529) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @04:44AM (#23309862) Homepage Journal
    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PeterKraus (1244558)
      Still, better than if they didn't apologise. I personally believe they are at least a bit honest in this..
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        I have to say, this was the first I actually heard about the company -- they sent a takedown notice, and then they apologized.

        I'm impressed.

        Granted, after reading the comments and hearing about crappy activation for a codec, I'm not sure, but other companies should take note -- when you make a dick move, do the following steps, in order:

        1: STOP what you're doing.
        2: Apologize.

        Most companies never manage step 1. But if you're going to stop anyway, admitting that you were wrong will buy you a lot of goodwill.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 91degrees (207121)
      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Swampash (1131503) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @05:06AM (#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 (Score:3, Informative)

        by wrook (134116)
        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...
      • by stry_cat (558859)
        Here's the relevant thread in the cordcodec forum.

        http://www.corecodec.com/forums/index.php?topic=981.0

        I'm not sure exactly who is being arrogant, but I'd hope we'd all stand down now that this issue has been apparently resolved.

    • by zappepcs (820751)
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192)
      They're hoping to avoid a perjury prosecution, and unfortunately it looks like it's going to work.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Wavicle (181176)
      I replied to one of the CoreCodec guys, [slashdot.org] in the previous thread on this subject, but I think it bears repeating. I don't think there was "no bad faith" on CoreCodec's part. I am not a customer of their's. This response was originally to someone claiming that avc-for-linux broke CoreAVC's copyright protection and now THAT is why the DMCA take down was sent:

      1. The DMCA take down notice only referenced a single law in the United States Code - Specifically Title 17 Section 512; the safe harbor take down clause.
    • by karmatic (776420)
      I have to think that this is just massive damage control. Imagine what their inboxes looked like over this fiasco

      No, this wasn't just "damage control". We really [slashdot.org] do [slashdot.org] care about user's rights.

      The CoreAVC on Linux project did break the copy protection in CoreAVC; a DMCA takedown was sent because of this, despite our internal policy of going after pirates, not customers. I _personally_ called up the person responsable at 4AM, and reamed him a new one. As long as I am a director in the company, I will not al
  • by baadger (764884) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @05:01AM (#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].
    • 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.
      • the codec is much better than what's available on Linus
        Linus was probably right not to name it after himself originally.
      • by jedidiah (1196)
        ...which is all fine and dandy but unless you are putting together your own STB
        hardware I don't see the point. You can already do HD h264 with Linux using the
        current state of the relevant codecs. Bluray might not work quite so well but
        Bluray has other problems (like just accessing the disk).

        CPUs have overtaken the problem.
    • 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.
      • by bhima (46039) *
        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: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          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.
    • by FluffyWithTeeth (890188) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @05:17AM (#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..
    • 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.
    • One word: Speed (Score:3, Informative)

      CoreAVC is by _far_ the fastest H.264 software decoder on the planet. Something like twice as fast as the nearest competitor.
    • by mczak (575986)
      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 C
      • by mczak (575986)
        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.
    • by yuna49 (905461)
      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 encode
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @05:14AM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by $RANDOMLUSER (804576)
      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.
      • Wow, a lucid post from an AC. I hope it's modded accordingly.

        -1 Astroturfing?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Curunir_wolf (588405)

        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.

        • by kimvette (919543)
          It even allows for bypassing for the purpose of interoperability - which is why that clause is there to begin with.
    • 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.
      • by Svartalf (2997)
        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
    • by Svartalf (2997) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @08:39AM (#23311268) Homepage
      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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by radish (98371)
      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 ha
  • Which is it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jamesh (87723) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @05:50AM (#23310124)
    So which is it? Is it "sorry we did this", or "sorry we got caught?"
    • by thue (121682)
      "Sorry we committed perjury be sending a false DMCA takedown notice, please don't sue us"?
  • Perjury (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nuskrad (740518) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @06:02AM (#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?
    • 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 go

      • 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.

    • by arkhan_jg (618674)
      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.
  • by houghi (78078) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @06:44AM (#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.
    • by IBBoard (1128019)

      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.
    • 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.

      • by houghi (78078)

        No, I think this worked exactly like it should.
        The content was offline. I do not call that working like it should.
      • 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.
        I'm failing to see the problem with that scenario. Maybe next time the person won't be sending out fradulent DMCA requests anymore.
        • I'm failing to see the problem with that scenario. Maybe next time the person won't be sending out fradulent DMCA requests anymore.

          The problem is that it gives the plaintiffs a strong reason not to back down, even if they want to. Their choices become: 1) say "I'm sorry" and get fined by the judge, or 2) say "oh, crud" and throw in every legal resource at their disposal in the hope that you'll get scared (or go bankrupt) and give in.

          I've read that when kidnapping became a capital crime, that the percentage of victims killed skyrocketed because the kidnappers perceived that their odds of escaping justice were better with a dead wit

          • The problem is that it gives the plaintiffs a strong reason not to back down, even if they want to. Their choices become: 1) say "I'm sorry" and get fined by the judge, or 2) say "oh, crud" and throw in every legal resource at their disposal in the hope that you'll get scared (or go bankrupt) and give in.

            I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. If the judge has already ruled their claim to be fraudulent and is going to fine them, exactly through what mechanism is this supposed plaintiff going to have to go after you?

            • If the judge has already ruled their claim to be fraudulent and is going to fine them, exactly through what mechanism is this supposed plaintiff going to have to go after you?

              I'm talking about before the judge rules. Suppose that the plaintiffs realizes their mistake after the courts are involved but before the final judgment. In that event, unscrupulous plaintiffs may decide they're better off fighting tooth and nail to prevent being proven wrong rather than trying to back down and facing penalties.

              • I'm talking about before the judge rules. Suppose that the plaintiffs realizes their mistake after the courts are involved but before the final judgment. In that event, unscrupulous plaintiffs may decide they're better off fighting tooth and nail to prevent being proven wrong rather than trying to back down and facing penalties.
                So then we should cease to penalize anyone? This is what your logic dictates.
                • So then we should cease to penalize anyone? This is what your logic dictates.

                  Yeah, you're right. Saying that it's dangerous to take away someone's option not to penalize you is exactly like saying you should never be penalized. I concede. Whatever.

                  • Saying that it's dangerous to take away someone's option not to penalize you

                    Whoever made this claim that you are saying is dangerous? Care to give an actual quotation? No one said the judge should be forced to penalize in every case and as with anything it's up to their discretion. If this was the actual thrust of your claim you were attacking a strawman.

                    is exactly like saying you should never be penalized.

                    You've been spending the last 3 posts bemoaning how if a plaintiff *gasp* might get punished for abusing the legal system that they will somehow go full steamroller ahead. We've all seen how the lack of accountability that th

    • by swillden (191260)

      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

      • by russotto (537200)

        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.

      • 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 g

  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @07:59AM (#23310868) Homepage
    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.
    • by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @08:58AM (#23311466) Journal
      You're absolutely right. Hang them out to dry as an example to others.
    • by JSBiff (87824)
      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
      • by Skye16 (685048)
        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
      • 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.

        Absolutely there is - making an example of CoreCodec will likely discourage future abuse of an already-bad law, which will benefit a much larger group of people than a small bunch of open-source fans. Whether the company is sorry or not doesn't matter in the least. Neither does their stated desire to work with
  • 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...
  • 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.

    A minor correction from: " So according to this, the CEO has legally stated that..." to: illegally stated that...

    My experience with companies like this is if they do it once they'll do it again. Maybe not another fake DMCA (too much damage control when caught) but they will do something else like change the licensing terms, abandon the work, leave paid customers high and dry, start suing customers... Something.

    The CEO gets a site taken down by lying but says there was no ill intent. Defends the DMC

  • I was kinda miffed about this, but I'm glad they took care of it. I bought their CorePlayer PocketPC that they reverse-engineered the video API on my phone for. I have an HTC TyTn II with a Qualcomm MSM-7200 chipset that has some ATI video stuff in it that can, among other things, play high-res video real smooth on the phone. BUT, Broadcomm sued them, so they weren't allowed to support the chipset anymore - hence not supplying the video overlay drivers. Of course, that didn't stop HTC from selling me a $350

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp

Working...