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.)

This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge, &a

[base3]

They drop projects faster than Paris Hilton's panties in the face of legal threats. Version control over Freenet or the like would be a good start.

Re:This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge,

[Anonymous Coward]

If it will help keep the panties on Paris Hilton, then I'm all for it.

Re:This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge,

[Jarik_Tentsu]

You'd think rather than just trying to take down CoreAVC-for-Linux immediately, CoreCodec might try to release a Linux version of the codec first.

~Jarik

DVCS

[SanityInAnarchy]

Use it like it was intended. Host your own official, public one if you like, but that can be over DSL, even.

Push the real traffic (patches, updates, etc) onto some mailing list, newsgroup, even forum -- those can be moved trivially, and your DVCS doesn't care what you're using, or can be adapted relatively quickly.

Freenet has been generally useless, as far as I can see. It's a very cool idea, but the only implementation I've ever seen is terminally fucking slow. Seriously, I browsed the Internet from a 200

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy]

I should clarify this:

and that, then, was faster than Freenet was several years ago on my 1.8 ghz amd64.

Re:This is why not to rely on Google, Sourceforge,

[karmatic]

Well, perhaps they should host on CoreCodec's CoreForge [coreforge.org] open-source hosting site instead.

File a counter notice

[RedWizzard]

If Google have received a notice then they have no option but to take down the site. Someone needs to file a counter [chillingeffects.org] notice [chillingeffects.org], then Google will reinstate them.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:File a counter notice

[RedWizzard]

The law is clear: they get a notice they have to take down the material in question. Of course they have a legal department, and that department will be telling them to take it down.

Re:File a counter notice

[BobPaul]

Well, they don't *have* to take it down. It's just that if the DMCA complaint is valid, then Google and the person responsible for posting the content can both be held liable if Google doesn't.

From a legal standpoint, it looks like it's wise for Google to always take stuff down. However, from a customer retention standpoint, it might be wise for Google to occasionally refuse when DMCA notices are blatantly inaccurate.

Re:File a counter notice

[RedWizzard]

Well, they don't *have* to take it down. It's just that if the DMCA complaint is valid, then Google and the person responsible for posting the content can both be held liable if Google doesn't.

IANAL, but it's not clear to me that Google can relinquish safe harbor status for one complaint without also relinquishing it for all other complaints. Far better to let the user deal with it - all they have to do is post a counter notice. It's not hard. Why would or should Google risk themselves just to save a user from having to post a counter notice?

From a legal standpoint, it looks like it's wise for Google to always take stuff down. However, from a customer retention standpoint, it might be wise for Google to occasionally refuse when DMCA notices are blatantly inaccurate.

That is true only if there are other ISPs that refuse to take down content. I'm not aware of any.

Re:File a counter notice

[tepples]

it's not clear to me that Google can relinquish safe harbor status for one complaint without also relinquishing it for all other complaints. Far better to let the user deal with it - all they have to do is post a counter notice.

And the user eats all costs of business interruption while the disputed content stays down for a minimum of two weeks (10 business days).

Re:File a counter notice

[RedWizzard]

it's not clear to me that Google can relinquish safe harbor status for one complaint without also relinquishing it for all other complaints. Far better to let the user deal with it - all they have to do is post a counter notice.

And the user eats all costs of business interruption while the disputed content stays down for a minimum of two weeks (10 business days).

Yes. If the cost is really that high the user is free to sue to recover those costs. The law sucks, I'm not defending it. I just don't see why people expect Google to assume the risks.

Re:

[tepples]

If the cost is really that high the user is free to sue to recover those costs.

The service provider is statutorily immune. From 17 USC 512(g) [copyright.gov]:

a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider's good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing.

Did you mean sue the party who served the notice?

Re:

[BobPaul]

Did you mean sue the party who served the notice?

That's what I assumed he meant.

Re:

[RedWizzard]

Did you mean sue the party who served the notice?

Yes.

Re:

[ben there...]

And the user eats all costs of business interruption while the disputed content stays down for a minimum of two weeks (10 business days).

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.

Rather than relying on someone else who can take your content down at any time for any reason.

Re:

[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:

[nguy]

And the user eats all costs of business interruption while the disputed content stays down for a minimum of two weeks (10 business days).

That's the law. It may be a bad law, but it's from our elected representatives. Google is just complying with the law.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Torrent?

[JonTurner]

Or post a bittorrent link with the word "banned by DMCA" in the title, ensuring it will NEVER go away and may in fact increase distribution by increasing demand.

It's 1st year economics: scarcity creates demand.

Re:

[jlarocco]

It's 1st year economics: scarcity creates demand.

It's 1st year economics, and you managed to fuck it up anyway. Good job.

Supply and demand do not cause each other. In other words, an item being scarce does not imply many people will want it. It implies that the people who *do* want it *may* have to pay a lot, but it doesn't automatically mean those people exist.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 1st year economics: scarcity creates demand.

It's not 1st year economics - it's 1st year marketing. Keep something scarce, make it harder to get, increase buzz, increase demand. See, for example, the Wii. Or Gmail accounts once upon a time.

Re:File a counter notice

[v1]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but they do not have no option here. The safe harbor thing basically says if you take it down immediately they can't sue you. So if they are not in the right to ASK you to take it down, you can tell them where to stick it. (and maybe then they sue you anyway, but that's always how it goes)

Just taking it down is of course the safer route, but them you get into the use of takedown notices as a scare tactic, sent out in many more cases than are appropriate, and still getting almost everything taken down.

Insta-caving to takedown notices just encourages them to abuse them more tomorrow, so this should not be looked upon as a good thing. Sure, if they sent YOU a takedown notice, maybe it would be prudent to take it down since you can't really lift a lawsuit even if you ARE in the right, but then there's even that 1% chance they find against you and you lose your shirt. Google on the other hand, has deep pockets and real lawyers on retainer that can evaluate a takedown notice, determine if it's something they need to comply with or not, and tell them where to shove it if they can.

Re:File a counter notice

[zappepcs]

You have to look at it like Google's legal team will be looking at it: Pick your battles! While this might clearly not be right, is it the one that we want to take to court? What are the 14 chess moves if we leave it up? How will this come out in court and will it hurt our position in ANY other legal situations?

What Google really needs here is someone to tell them Hey, put that back up! here's the counter DMCA notice! Then Google risks little in terms of far reaching results of putting it back. That is the way the DMCA works, so somebody on the project should do that, pronto, asap, yesterday even.

Re:

[Frosty Piss]

You have to look at it like Google's legal team will be looking at it

Exactly.

Google's legal team works for Google. Google is in business to make money, not get wrapped up in lawsuits about idealism rather than profit.

Yes, I know! It's hard to believe.

And if I had the private number to Larry's and Sergey's yacht, I'd call them and give them a piece of my mind.

Re:

[Barraketh]

And if I had the private number to Larry's and Sergey's yacht, I'd call them and give them a piece of my mind.

And you would say... what exactly? Google is doing nothing more than obeying the law. The law very clearly states that in order to have 'safe harbor' protection from copyright infringement lawsuits, Google must take down the content, and it's up to the person who put it up in the first place to challenge the DMCA notice.

I don't think Google could fight this particular battle even if they wanted to. I'm not entirely sure about this point, but I think DMCA is an all or nothing deal - you either don't m

Re:File a counter notice

[russotto]

I don't think Google could fight this particular battle even if they wanted to. I'm not entirely sure about this point, but I think DMCA is an all or nothing deal - you either don't monitor any content, or you monitor all of it, so if they don't obey this DMCA notice, they're liable for all the other copyrighted material they host/link to.

Actually, no. The DMCA does not create any liability. Whatever protection from liability existed before the DMCA still exists. See 17 USC 512(l) This protection was actually quite substantial; the main reason the copyright interests supported the DMCA is because in exchange for something they didn't actually have (liability for online hosting providers and search engines), they got something they wanted (takedowns outside the judicial process).

Further, failure to act on one DMCA notice should not expose the provider to liability with respect to other unrelated claims of infringement; it would take some twisted legal maneuvering to get that one across (or perhaps a judge with the same motivations as the district judge in the Verizon case). The only way they could lose DMCA safe harbor for everything is if they didn't designate an agent to receive the notices.

So yes, a service provider could receive, e.g., a notice from the James Bond people for "PussyGalore.jpg", check and see that it's a picture of your cats, and tell the James Bond people to stuff it, and still be protected by the DMCA safe harbor for "Octopussy.mpg" which turned out to be the actual movie.

Re:

[RedWizzard]

Google can give up safe harbor protection but it's not clear to me (IANAL) that they can do so for a single complaint. And why should they? All the user has to do is to post a counter notice. Why should Google expose themselves to possible liability just to save a user having to post a notice?

Insta-caving to takedown notices just encourages them to abuse them more tomorrow, so this should not be looked upon as a good thing. Sure, if they sent YOU a takedown notice, maybe it would be prudent to take it down since you can't really lift a lawsuit even if you ARE in the right, but then there's even that 1% chance they find against you and you lose your shirt. Google on the other hand, has deep pockets and real lawyers on retainer that can evaluate a takedown notice, determine if it's something they need to comply with or not, and tell them where to shove it if they can.

The copyright owner can still sue the user regardless of whether Google honors the takedown notice or not. Google refusing in no way protects the user from liability, it only increases Google's potential liability. Ye

Re:

[rtb61]

Google is an advertising and marketing company. Typical publishers are major users of advertising, not only to sell their content but also buried within their content. Google is coming under pressure because growth is slowing even with overseas expansion. They are becoming very sensitive to the demands of publishers and are basically just starting to roll over at every demand made.

Their feel good marketing campaign which gained them a lot of market acceptance is losing it's tarnish and they are being expo

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.

Re:

[aim2future]

And US citizens should consider a revolution against a system that can create things as insane as the DMCA.

Earlier I wanted to move to US, but with the incredible development of the law system and its abuse of control this is not an attractive option any more.

DRM [wikipedia.org] is DefectiveByDesign [slashdot.org] , but DMCA [wikipedia.org] is a law so insane that it is very hard to understand that a US revolution has not happened yet. The problem is probably that the coders who are aware about the problem is such a minority, despite that the h [freenerd.org]

Re:

[karmatic]

The DMCA is very much broken, but this takedown notice was not in keeping with company policy. An employee got a little ahead of himself.

The US future may be fixable, but between the food shortages, and the housing crisis, our economy (and our freedoms) aren't getting fixed anytime soon.

Of course, we're in good company - given the 681 TRILLION [bloomberg.com] derivatives market, it's going to take the entire world economy with us.

Ow.

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.

Re:

[QuoteMstr]

Concentrated power makes manipulation too easy.

Indeed. Why is it any better to concentrate power in corporations than in government though? At least government is nominally accountable to the people. That's why I favor strong government regulation of business. The DMCA came about because the balance of power is too heavily weighted, via lobbyists, toward corporations.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

After a crossover point, the government is the singleton coroporation.
As I age, it becomes more apparent that Pink Floyd's "Welcome to the Machine" is really an unofficial anthem for a huge chunk of the population.

At least government is nominally accountable to the people.

This is a statement with lots of acceleration, but little mass, and therefore negligible force.
Government accountability is about keeping decision-making power low in the hierarchy, where the decision-maker is more likely to live with

Re:Where Else?

[BoberFett]

Only because the UN isn't a lawmaking body. If it were, you could expect their corruption to make corrupt politicians at the national level look like saints.

Re:

[PingXao]

Like the IOC, International Olympic Committee. Has there ever been a more corrupt organiztion on the face of the earth? The mafia (no such thing), the RIAA, the MPAA, lawyers as a whole and bankers... take them all and roll them up into one big ball and they've got NOTHING over the IOC.

Re:

[ben there...]

I can think of numerous crappy state laws in recent years, but not a single bad "law" from the UN.

As the other poster said, the UN doesn't make laws. They make resolutions, but at best those can be considered guidelines.

The closest thing would be international treaties, and I can easily think of a few bad ones [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Those treaties, when ratified by a state, become International Law and bind that state.
Even if not ratified by a particular state, they become Customary International Law, and states are pressured to conform.

Re:Where Else?

[BobPaul]

DMCA is a US law. It can only be enforced in the US. This is why, for example, piratebay.org has been able to get by ignoring DMCA take down notices for the past several years.

That said, I believe most EU countries, as well as Australia and recently Canada have laws similar to the DMCA. Other than Sweden I'm not sure of any specific countries that don't, though I'd venture to guess Russia, the middle east, india, china, the Koreas, africa, and most S american countries.

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.

Re:

[BobPaul]

Actually no what? What part of my statement are you negating? I never said Israel had a DMCA like law. In fact, I suspected middle eastern countries probably didn't.

Re:

[poetmatt]

Hi Bob,

You siad "I believe most countries have laws similar to to the DMCA" and what I'm saying is that places such as Israel indeed, do not. Many countries do not follow DMCA and outright refuse it, even Australia in many cases.

Not "exactly" the same sure, no country has that, but many actually do not allow the same level of infringement and takedowns that the US has.

Re:

[BobPaul]

I said "most EU countries". Israel is not part of the European Union. But you are right about Australia. Someone pointed out they just reformed their copyright laws in the past year or two making them better, not worse. The EU still has the EUCD which most European Union nations have implemented and is in some ways worse than the DMCA.

Re:Where Else?

[JustinOpinion]

That said, I believe most EU countries, as well as Australia and recently Canada have laws similar to the DMCA.

FYI: A DMCA-like law was proposed in Canada, but it was never ratified. Actually, it is being repeatedly tabled, but has always been struck down. For the time being, Canada doesn't have any DMCA-like legal provisions. (Refer to Michael Geist's blog [michaelgeist.ca] for more information.)

Re:

[Crayon Kid]

That said, I believe most EU countries, as well as Australia and recently Canada have laws similar to the DMCA.

That's a strange belief (not to mention wrong). Why do you assume it's normal for most countries to have something similar to the DMCA? Most countries' enforcement of copyright does not reach the ridiculous levels seen in the US.

Re:

[BobPaul]

I didn't say most countries, I said most EU countries, Australia, and Canada. Canada I guess I was wrong about. They have managed to stave it off. As far as the EU, I guess I saw a bunch of articles like this [zdnet.co.uk] and this [zdnet.co.uk] a few years back. Additionally, I seem to remember at least Switzerland, the UK, and Germany passing stricter regulation.

If you could clarify the situation for me, I and other readers here would be grateful, I'm sure.

You are incorrect about Canada, for now

[Phil Urich]

I forgive you for getting it wrong, since there keep being stories about "Canadian DMCA about to pass!!!!1" but as it turns out we've had really weak governments for the past while and thus in fact a full equivalent of the DMCA has yet to pass (unless I've missed something in the past month?). Key word being "yet", but it has never been a priority of the recent minority governments, nor have they quite had the time.

In terms of oppressive new legislation and expansion of corporate rights, Canada tends to

Re:

[Max Littlemore]

That said, I believe most EU countries, as well as Australia and recently Canada have laws similar to the DMCA. Other than Sweden I'm not sure of any specific countries that don't, though I'd venture to guess Russia, the middle east, india, china, the Koreas, africa, and most S american countries.

Australia actually relaxed copyright laws in 2006 or 07 I think. We had silly copyright laws that until the DMCA were far worse than the US. Thankfully they are not generally enforced to the letter, or just about

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Next thing you're going to tell me Australia is a continent!

Re:

[Jurily]

Sweden [thepiratebay.org], apparently.

"Free" trade agreements

[tepples]

The DMCA is a US only law. It is inapplicable in other countries.

Until the United States executes two-party "free" trade agreements with foreign countries that require both parties to implement legislation identical to the DMCA. The United States has already done so with Australia.

Identical

[Chuck Chunder]

Is the Australian legislation really identical?

I ask because I can't recall any DMCA style take down (ie notification, counter notification etc) taking place here.

I think we've adopted certain aspects of the DMCA (such as banning circumvention of "effective technical measures") but I don't think it's reasonable to suggest we have adopted the DMCA completely.

There doesn't seem to be anything similar to the DMCA's takedown notices mentioned in the agreement [dfat.gov.au]

Re:

[RiotingPacifist]

Why cant they simply give the code to a non-us company to host?
I hear Mr Svartholm [wikipedia.org] uses DMCA notices as toilet paper.

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:

[maxume]

That's insane.

Re:

[Compholio]

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.

That's insane.

Why's that? It seems reasonable to me, F/OSS frequently pushes the "information wants to be free" idea, so I can see companies confusing that with "these people want to 'steal' 'our' content".

Re:

[RiotingPacifist]

The more FOSS software out there the less piracy, the smaller the place for these goons, ever wonderd why there isnt much server piracy?

Re:I figured this might happen.

[Comsn]

these patches were already sent to the MPlayer project.
but were rejected for various reasons.

here is the post which announced the coreavc-linux project:
http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/2007-July/052959.html [mplayerhq.hu]

the coreavc codec is still faster than ffmpeg's ffh264 decoder. ffdshow has a multithreaded ffh264, but it was rejected by ffmpeg developers.

ffmpeg has a GSoC project for multithreaded decoding of most codecs.

http://code.google.com/soc/2008/ffmpeg/appinfo.html?csaid=9FD2BF705A5D5DBB [google.com]

Re:I figured this might happen.

[Kjella]

Wow, how many conspiracy theories you managed to roll into one. With the abundance of free hosting, it's easy to do hit-n-run copyright infringement. It means that one uploads clearly violating content for others to download as long as it lasts until it's taken down. Sending a "we believe you're infringing on our copyright" notice to those uploaders is futile because it'd go unanswered and would only extend the time from something is put up until it can be taken down, if the contact information is valid at all. I've seen plenty comments here on how they wish the SCO vs. IBM case (and Novell etc.) go faster, well it doesn't only work to your benefit.

In order to respond to how easy it's to put information up, they made it easy to take it down as well. I bet most DMCA takedowns go entirely unnoticed because whoever caused it never knew, cared or knew it was correct. We only hear about those cases where someone protests a takedown. It's really easy, there's no burden of proof or anything. All it takes is for someone to say "Hey I'm not a runner and I disagree with the takedown" and the ISPs must put it back up ASAP. I think that's a reasonable arrangement. The fact-checking could be a little better at times but some people here on slashdot want to put them in a catch 22 - without downloading a suspected song they don't have good enough proof, and if they do download suspected songs and it turns out they don't own it they're filthy pirates too.

If this is abuse, send a counter-notice. Get some precedent that this kind of code isn't covered by the DMCA. Then use that next time to show that they knew the takedown would be invalid, and take it from there. There's no need to go freaky over getting a DMCA notice. As far as I know, they can only send it once since the counternotice is basicly a STFU or sue response.

Re:

[RiotingPacifist]

Its true particularly true for google/youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8hWIGv5L0 [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIVOZB2K6Y0 [youtube.com]
but i suppose its because of thier impending lawsuit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqgWW0z7vM [youtube.com]

Re:

[Kjella]

That is not true. The ISP is permitted, not compelled to put the contact back up after having received a counterclaim. Most ISPs decline, preferring to let their customers go rather than deal with the (non-existent, given the safe harbor provision) risk of being sued.

Read 17512(g)(2)(C), the ISP is compelled:

"replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice"

If not, they can be sued for the takedown as 17512(g)(1) no longer protects them. Any other right to terminate the contract would be outside the DMCA, I guess many free services include the right to terminate it immidiately for any or no reason but if you have a contract with a termination period they are in fact

Re:

[Kjella]

I doubt that any judge and jury is going to hold that against the ISP should it be decided infringement had indeed occurred, which is the only case in which the safe harbor would be an issue anyway.

No, this is the ISPs liability shield from the user for making the takedown. If they don't do it correctly, you can in theory sue the ISP for damages caused by the takedown even if (or rather, particularly if) there's no infringing content. I agree it's full of loopholes though.

Re:

[karmatic]

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.

Um, no.

The takedown had nothing at all to do with Microsoft, Linux, or DRM. CoreCodec has no problem with "fair use" rights, and uses no DRM in their decoders. So, since CoreAVC doesn't support DRM on Windows, why would it matter if it's ported to Linux?

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.

Copywritten, or copyrighted?

[tepples]

Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

PROTIP: When you say "copywrite" (and the past participle "copywritten"), and you're not talking about advertisement text [wikipedia.org], that makes you look uneducated. Copyright statutes, such as Title 17, United States Code, consistently spell it "copyrighted", not "copywritten".

</national-socialist>

Re:

[delt0r]

But what about all the patents? mpeg-la licenses are not cheap. After 2010 IIRC you are even supose to pay for content encoded in AVC.

Trademark is the least of there problems.

Re:

[karmatic]

It had nothing to do with trademarks. An overzealous employee was under the (mistaken) belief that reverse-engineering is illegal.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[arkanes]

It is, but that doesn't mean that companies don't issue DMCA takedowns when they really are trying to resolve a trademark issue.

Re:Dont use Trademark/Copywritten name in OSS name

[belmolis]

Yes, but if the only real issue is trademark and the issuer of the takedown notice does not own the copyright to the material, issuing a takedown notice is a crime. 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.

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:

[karmatic]

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.

The DMCA takedown had nothing to do with perjury; rather, it had to do with reverse-engineering and the fact that the software hard-codes a serial number to bypass copy protection, potentially making it a "circumvention device".

It was still done by an overzealous employee, and was a mistake.

FWIW, if you read the DMCA:

(3) Elements of notificat

Re:

[arkanes]

I don't actually expect anything to come of this, because bogus DMCA complaints are common and as far as I know there's never been any sanctions on anyone, even much more grievous offenders than this. But the whole purpose of the clauses you quote above is to *prevent* exactly this use of the DMCA. The entire DMCA complaint was bogus - a lie, if you will. They did not download the files mentioned, they did not contained copyrighted material (even if they violated the DMCA in other ways), and they did not h

maybe it'll turn out all OK in the end

[DimmO]

http://www.corecodec.com/forums/index.php?topic=981.msg5695 [corecodec.com]
it looks like coreavc are looking to work with the project to get it all legal and hunky-dorey.

Mod parent up

[Barny]

Again without going into all the details (but your pushing ;-)... this is not about copyright (even thought the DMCA deals with that), this is mostly about reverse engineering without permission under the DMCA... by us giving Alan permission.... problem solved.

Seems there was evidence the writer of CoreAVC-for-linux reverse engineered their codec to get his patch working, they have since given him permission to do so, the DMCA take-down has been withdrawn.

A company not only defending their rights honestly, but then when malice is not shown backing off and giving their blessing to an OSS project, back off /. seems these are the good guys.

Re:

[Ngwenya]

Seems there was evidence the writer of CoreAVC-for-linux reverse engineered their codec to get his patch working, they have since given him permission to do so,

Wait a minute. Since when was reverse engineering illegal under the DMCA? Specifically, reverse engineering in order to promote interoperability.

It may well be that the DMCA produces such an effect - in which case this is an even more dreadful piece of legislation (just rename it the Competition Avoidance Act, and be done).

In the EU, the Software Dir

Re:Mod parent up

[karmatic]

Seems there was evidence the writer of CoreAVC-for-linux reverse engineered their codec to get his patch working, they have since given him permission to do so, the DMCA take-down has been withdrawn.

Although it was reverse-engineered, US case law protects the right to reverse-engineer. The DMCA also offers specific exemptions for reverse-engineering for the purpose of creating interoperable software, provided such use is not for the purposes of a "circumvention device". The takedown was the result of an overzealous employee, and should not have happened.

An official statement will be coming out later today.

Solution

[prxp]

If they took down the project based on an unfair DMCA claim, just file a counter claim [umsystem.edu].

I know it's all gotten bad when...

[Shoten]

I find myself relieved that at least this DMCA complaint actually has something to do with technical copyright controls, on some level at least. Not about a security vulnerability, or making printer cartridges, or a person's resume.

Something is fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

First off a quickie status update: The user "BetaBoy" on coreavc forums has stated that CoreAVC has revoked the DCMA notice, and granted the projects lead developer permission to continue the project.

He has also stated that this was not so much about copyright infringement, but reverse engineering the codec without permission.

The DCMA takedown notice (which was just today posted to Chill Effects) references "links to copyrighted code". Yet Betaboy makes reference to this being about "reverse engineering wit

Yes..

[Svenne]

You appear to have missed this sentence:

"If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint [chillingeffects.org] that caused the removal at ChillingEffects.org."

Re:Yes..

[OverlordQ]

And you appear to have missed the Editorial:

(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.)

Hence:

Notice Unavailable

The cease-and-desist or legal threat you requested is not yet available.

Chilling Effects will post the notice after we process it.

Re:

[Svenne]

What is this? Ass-backwards-land? Yes, I know what the summary says. I know what the chillingeffects-site says. The complaint of the grand parent was that there was no link to where the the DMCA takedown notice on chillingeffects would be, which was false.

Re:

[Curien]

Then you suck at reading comprehension. The first post in this thread was a complaint that the article summary was wrong because TFA did not provide a link to an *article* on Chilling Effects but rather to the homepage.

Re:

[peipas]

If you click the DMCA complaint [chillingeffects.org] link on the Google project page [google.com] it takes you to the specific takedown to which the submitter refers, not the main page.

Re:

[CastrTroy]

That's like AT&T losing their common carrier status because they refuse to kick a known mob boss off their network. I would actually argue, that doing something to stop the illegal activity would cause them to lose their common carrier status. The common carrier status (if Google even has any in this situation) means that they don't have to do anything to stop illegal activity occurring on their network.

Re:

[crankyspice]

There isn't anything controversial in the fact that they responded to the takedown notice. If they don't, they can lose their common carrier status and become liable for all content on their servers, which they surely do not want. If they fail to put the project back up given appropriate counter notice, that's controversial.

Sigh. Google doesn't have "common carrier" status ("common carrier" is a legal term of art with a specific meaning). What they'd lose, if they didn't act "expeditiously" to remove co

Term of art vs. colloquialism

[tepples]

Google doesn't have "common carrier" status ("common carrier" is a legal term of art with a specific meaning).

Plenty of words have both a "legal term of art" meaning and a more general informal meaning. As I understand it, the informal meaning of "common carrier" includes DMCA safe harbor status.

Re:

[EveLibertine]

The takedown isn't controversial, but the complaint itself appears to be. I believe conveying this was the intention of the summary, though apparently poorly worded.

Re:

[pikine]

Gentlemen and Gentleladies, please refute it here (2003) [kuro5hin.org], here (Mar 2007) [slashdot.org], or here (Dec 2007) [slashdot.org], or or not waste your time at all.

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft

[cwsulliv]

See! That's what Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have been telling us all along. This real life example proves it!

Re:

[Bacon Bits]

What a load of crap - the GPL doesn't cover this in any way. If a lawyer did indeed give this advice, they should be fired. And FYI, GPL is NOT "GNU Protective License". Its GNU/GPL and stands for GNU General Public Licence.

Yeah, by that logic Microsoft's EULA grants them ownership over anything you create in Excel or Word. Or Outlook. Or SQL Server. Heck, pretty much any data file created on Windows suddenly becomes property of Microsoft.

Of course, I'd imagine that Intel has a similar EULA for the micro

When code and input files are distributed together

[tepples]

Input and output files are data files, not code. They have nothing to do at all with the licensing of the input or the output.

It's often the case that code designed to work with specific input files and input files designed to work with specific code are distributed together. This is the case with a program and its icons, or with a game program and its models/textures/maps/sounds [happypenguin.org]. Neither the GPL nor the GPL FAQ makes it clear to me when the collective work of a program and its tightly coupled input files qualifies as an "aggregate".

Re:When code and input files are distributed toget

[Bacon Bits]

Well, they can't license anything that they don't have copyright to. End users create the content, and thus own the copyright. It's not a derivative work (as defined by 17 U.S.C. 101).

Internal data files are exactly code. They're data objects in descriptive binary code necessary for the program to function, they're owned and copyrighted by the code author, and they've necessarily already been distributed as a component of the program under the same licensing restrictions. How do we know? Because they'

Re:

[JackieBrown]

If that is true, (which from all the fud spread about the GPL would not surpise me) you should take all your documents and go to a lawyer.

Especially if you can get someone to say they did not hire you based on your previous bosses' comments.

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

[Barny]

Well, yeah, it was open source, and the copies they released with OSS license are likely still freely distributable under the license they released them under.

Using a different license and releasing new code doesn't suddenly make the old one less enforceable, an OSS should be able to use that code as long as the license permitted it, however the DMCA take-down implies they are using code from the closed source version.

Of course as a user of both CoreAVC for windows (the multi threaded h264 codec) and CorePlayer (the mobile phone media player) I hope they are doing this above board, would hate to think my dollars are funding a bunch of tools.

Assuming they are tools and this is all over the name, then this should be a Trademark dispute correct? And isn't the burden of proof on the the plaintiff and not the defendant?

Re:

[ianpatt]

From the forum thread [corecodec.com] at CoreAVC discussing this, the founder of CoreAVC says "Again without going into all the details... this is mostly about reverse engineering without permission under the DMCA... by us giving Alan permission.... problem solved".

Without seeing the coreavc-for-linux code I can't say whether or not he had to reverse engineer anything about CoreAVC to get it working, but it doesn't seem like hooking up a DirectShow filter via a (relatively) standardized API would need anything like that.

Re:

[karmatic]

Since this claim was made under the DMCA, he would have had to be reverse engineering something related to copy protection. Perhaps there is some sort of product activation that had to be hacked around to get the codec working on a non-windows platform?

CoreAVC features copy protection. With CoreAVC for linux, they hard-code the windows product ID, and the serial # in a "Virtual" registry. Technically, it's a violation of the DMCA in the sense that it's potentially a "circumvention device". It would probab

Re:

[arkanes]

An overzealous employee? This was sent over the name of the company CEO, claiming to have been sent by him and it was in his name that the "under penalty of perjury" claim was made. Are there really employees there that are empowered to speak with his name, but make these kind of failures of judgment?