CoreCodec Apologizes For CoreAVC Takedown 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."
Uhrrr.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
DMCA working as intended (Score:5, Informative)
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:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (Score:4, Informative)
sometimes decent is not good enough (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Re:Ah, CoreAVC (Score:5, Informative)
Mod parent up (Score:3, Informative)
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:Will the Google project resume now? (Score:5, Informative)
After that, it's up to the courts, if either party wants to take it that far.
Re:DMCA working as intended (Score:3, Informative)
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:Will the Google project resume now? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Will the Google project resume now? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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.
This doesn't make any sense (Score:5, Informative)
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:Will the Google project resume now? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why would you want CoreAVC on the Free Desktop? (Score:1, Informative)
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:DMCA working as intended (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Will the Google project resume now? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Will the Google project resume now? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Will the Google project resume now? (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Will the Google project resume now? (Score:3, Informative)
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:Will the Google project resume now? (Score:3, Informative)
DMCA allows it for interoperability (Score:1, Informative)
No.
So it is for interoperability.
But then either you knew that and therefore lied or didn't check in which case Svartalf's point is correct.