A question on legality

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Quicktime is free. RealPlayer is free.

Not free to redistribute.

What "cracked commercial software" are you referring to?

Not all are cracked. Here's a list of codecs in current
versions of the K-Lite package.

- DivX Pro [version 5.2.1] [Decoding]
- DivX Pro [version 5.2.1] [Encoding]
- XviD [Version 1.0.3 build 2004-12-20] [Decoding]
- XviD [Version 1.0.3 build 2004-12-20] [Encoding]
- 3ivX Pro [version D4 4.5.1] [Decoding]
- 3ivX Pro [version D4 4.5.1] [Encoding]
- Windows Media 9 VCM [version 9.0.1.369]
- Windows Media [version 10.0.0.3646 / 8.0.0.4487 / 8.0.0.4000]
- On2 VP3 [version 3.2.5.0]
- On2 VP6 [version 6.4.2.0] [Decoding]
- On2 VP6 [version 6.4.2.0] [Encoding]
- Ligos Indeo XP [version 5.2820.15.58]
- Intel Indeo [version 4.51.16.2]
- Intel Indeo [version 3.24.15.03]
- Intel I.263 [version 2.55.1.16]
- huffyuv 2.1.1 [CCE Patch 0.2.5]
- MS MPEG-4 [version 4.1.0.3927]
- DivX MPEG-4 Low and Fast motion [version 4.1.0.3927]
- Cyberlink DVD decoder [version 6.0.0.1417]
- Elecard MPEG-2 demuxer [version 2.0.84.30429]
- MainConcept MPEG-2 demuxer [version 1.0.0.54]
- Ligos MPEG-2 decoder [version 4.0.0.77]
- Ligos MPEG-2 demuxer [version 4.0.0.77]
- Cyberlink MPEG-2 decoder [version 6.0.0.1402]
- MainConcept MPEG-2 decoder [version 1.0.0.56]
- Fraunhofer MP3 DirectShow decoder [version 1.9.0.311]
- WMA DirectShow decoder [version 8.0.0.4487]
- AC3 DirectShow decoder [version 0.70b mod]
- AC3 ACM decoder [version 0.7]
- Ogg Vorbis DirectShow decoder (CoreVorbis) [version 1.0]
- AAC DirectShow decoder (CoreAAC) [build 2005-02-24]
- 3ivX Pro [version D4 4.5.1] [Decoding]
- 3ivX Pro [version D4 4.5.1] [Decoding]
- Nero Digital MPEG-1/2 decoder [version 1.0.4.6]
- MusePack DirectShow decoder [version 1.0.0.3]
- Voxware DirectShow decoder [version 1.0.0.12]
- Monkey's Audio DirectShow decoder [version 1.00]
- DivX Audio [version 4.2.0.0]
- LAME MP3 Encoder [version 3.96.1]
- Ogg DirectShow splitter [version 0.9.9.5] and Vorbis DLLs [version 1.1.0]
- Matroska DirectShow splitter [version 1.0.2.5]
- Matroska DirectShow muxer [version 1.0.0.9]
- Matroska splitter (made by Haali) [build 2005-03-22]
- DirectVobSub (vsfilter) [version 2.36]
- Ogg DirectShow splitter (made by Tobias) [version 0.9.9.5]
- Vorbis DLLs [version 1.1.0]
- Matrix Mixer [version 0.30b]
- SHOUTcast Source [version 1.0.0.1]
- Morgan Multimedia Stream Switcher [version 0.9.9]
- VobSubStrip [version 0.11]

 

[George Skandalidis]

καλός εσπέÏα George;

Excellent. It's καλήν εσπέÏα since it's feminine, but I'm impressed!

I cannot respond to the Coda codec pack nor the Quicktime "alternative"
codec." However, Realplayer released their codec source for some time
of "open" development. The real codec developed by MPC is such an example.

Yes, I know. The Helix player, no? At last, a decent move by that
company. I hope it leads to the development of better decoders on
more platforms with sane and clean installation habits. Until a
satisfactory freeware decoder is implemented, I urge people to not
trap themselves within the confines of a proprietary format. As for
MPC, I have recommended it in the past.

Further, we're having a big argument right now about the difference
between "reverse engineering" and "over-the-wire reverse engineering."
See the Torvalds vs Tridgell fiasco as reported in theregister.co.uk for
example.

I am out of my depth here. I say reverse engineer all you want. You
are doing sth productive and beneficial to the public. I trust you
understand that the products I mentioned do not in any way indulge in
this. They just lift dlls and axs off other software.

Sooo...no answers but two points:

1) some companies have been releasing their heretofore proprietary
technology under various "open" scenarios (ie Realplayer).

About time.

2) some companies are not committing "flagrant copyright infringement"
in that they are not reverse engineering the (proprietary) "black box,"
rather, they are reverse engineering the signals that enter and exit
said (proprietary) black box. Samba & pdfcreator are good examples of this.

I have benefitted from the fruits of such labour. OpenOffice has
reverse engineered the signals of MS Office. It hasn't however
repackaged 80% of MS Office into a new installer.

hth

Tremendously.

 

[George Skandalidis]

I don't believe this question should be posed only as a "Fair use of
copyright material" [Helen], nor answered that way. Generally, an
expression of an idea is copyrightable, but not the idea itself.
The question should be whether a particular CODECS is copyrightable.

So, which is the idea and which is the expression in our case? I
venture that mpeg-2 decoding is the idea and the Cyberlink decoder is
the expression. Of course decoding a format should not be
copyrighted, the particular tools developed by someone for this
purpose, however, might.

Mitel v. Iqtel
http://digital-law-online.info/cases/44PQ2D1172.htm
"We have extended this traditional copyright doctrine to exclude
from protection against infringement those elements of a work that
necessarily result from external factors inherent in the subject
matter of the work. For computer-related applications, these
external factors include hardware standards and mechanical
specifications, software standards and compatibility requirements,
computer manufacturer design standards, industry programming
practices, and practices and demands of the industry being
serviced.See Gates Rubber, 9F.3d at 838; Computer Assocs. Int’l,
Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 709-10 (2d Cir. 1992); Plains
Cotton Coop. Assoc. v. Goodpasture Serv., Inc., 807 F.2d 1256, 1262
1635](5th Cir. 1987) (declining to extend protection to a computer
program where the similarities between the plaintiff’s and
defendant’s programs were dictated by the externalities of the
cotton market and by other market factors)

The Cyberlink decoder filter is not a necessary result of mpeg-2
decoding. The same need could result in the Elecard, MainConcept,
InterVideo or FFmpeg filters. The similarities between all these may
be the necessary result of mpeg-2 decoding (software standards and
compatibility requirements).

 

[Florestan]

Over the past couple of months, I have seen regulars recommend
software like the Coda codec pack or Real/Quicktime Alternative
codecs. I was under the impression that there is flagrant copyright
infringement in these packages, as they seem to redistribute codecs
from commercial products without permission.

Ãåéá óïõ, Ãéþñãï (translation: Hello, George)

I don't know whether the K-Lite packs redistribute copyrighted codecs,
but I suppose that, if the codecs in the packs are not unchanged, then
*at least some* reverse engineering must have been involved. In that
sense, one could certainly say that their legality is maybe marginal.

For that matter, although the two may not be comparable, the same is
true about the VideoLan project (this is openly recognized by members of
the VideoLan team; see quote at the end).

Now, both these packages are out for a long while, and none of the main
interested parties (MS, Apple, Real) has reacted AFAIK. Note also that a
well-respected site like BetaNews hosts both packages (and the parts
which make Mega Codec Pack) for download.

So, for my part, I keep using and recommending VLC and the K-Lite packs,
while watching for any official reactions.

What I would miss most if I had to drop them would be Real Alternative.
I had stopped listening to my beloved BBC Radio because I did not want
RealPlayer installed in my system. Since I discovered Real Alternative,
I can enjoy again BBC Radio.

Here is a quote from a very interesting Builder.com interview with
members of the VideoLan team:

http://builder.com.com/5100-6375-5136135.html?tag=tt

Builder.com: What has been your biggest challenge?

DJ: Making VideoLAN user friendly.
SAM: Obtaining specifications for codecs and file formats. A lot of
reverse engineering was involved and some of this reverse engineering is
at the very border of the law in some parts of the world, and our
biggest challenge may come from individuals or entities trying to stop
us (using perverted legal systems, using the DMCA, the EUCD, etc.).
BP: Combining advanced features, ease of use, and maintainability is a
real mess ;-)

Regards,
Florestan

 

[Mel]

Indeed. Aside from the legal/moral issue of installing cracked
software on one's machine, there's also the issue of the K-Lite folks
doing a pretty shoddy job, throwing conflicting packages together into
their warez product.

<http://msmvps.com/chrisl/archive/2004/07/04/9546.aspx>

--

Wasn't there also a critical security issue (buffer overflow
allowing execution of code if I remember correctly) with older
Real player codecs, as distributed with Real alternative?


Mel.

 

[dadiOH]

Helen wrote:

In the USA we have a constitution that guarantees FREE speech,
religion, press, peaceable assembly and to petition congress for
redress of grievances. In many other parts of the world, probably in
most, those lacking such don't understand. You cannot strip language
from a culture and comprehend.

That really answered him, didn't it?

<strip language???>

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

 

[David]

Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to
freely use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of commentary and criticism.

Note the use of the term "portions" in this excerpt from your post.
Copying the entirety of a codec is not copying a portion. In addition
you are not copying it for comment of parody but for use by the
original purpose of the work. In view of this I feel that the original
poster has a valid point about piracy. Unless the copyright owner has
given written permission then any copying is a violation.

If these are not direct copies but have been, somehow, reverse
engineered then copyright could be avoided unless there was a patent
involved.

 

[David]

*snip*

Wow...you can copy and paste...very impressive. Now, to show us that
you actually understand what you've copied and pasted (it's already
fairly obvious that you DON'T, but I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt), explain how Quicktime Alternative/Real Alternative fall under
the categories of "commenting upon", "criticizing", or "parody".

As a side note, I can't help but note how ironic it is that in a
discussion of fair use you've decided to copy and paste the contents
of two pages from Stanford's page on Copyright and Fair Use without
attribution. I suppose, in your mind, that falls under fair use as
well.

Actually no, that would not fall under fair use since no attribution
was given.

 

[David]

Helen wrote:



That really answered him, didn't it?

<strip language???>

Oh no! It's another Janet Jackson circus.

 

[dkg_ctc]

*snip*

Actually no, that would not fall under fair use since no
attribution was given.

That was actually sort of my point...sometimes I forget that sarcasm
doesn't travel well over the internet.

 

[Dewey Edwards]

I don't believe this question should be posed only as a "Fair use of
copyright material" [Helen], nor answered that way. Generally, an
expression of an idea is copyrightable, but not the idea itself.
The question should be whether a particular CODECS is copyrightable.

So, which is the idea and which is the expression in our case?

Honestly, here, I don't know where the line should be drawn. I
posted because "faire use" as presented earlier [not by you] was
wrong.

I
venture that mpeg-2 decoding is the idea and the Cyberlink decoder is
the expression. Of course decoding a format should not be
copyrighted, the particular tools developed by someone for this
purpose, however, might.

Yes, *might*, and I'm not dismissing *probably are* in this case.
The original argument against was terrible.

Mitel v. Iqtel
http://digital-law-online.info/cases/44PQ2D1172.htm
"We have extended this traditional copyright doctrine to exclude
from protection against infringement those elements of a work that
necessarily result from external factors inherent in the subject
matter of the work. For computer-related applications, these
external factors include hardware standards and mechanical
specifications, software standards and compatibility requirements,
computer manufacturer design standards, industry programming
practices, and practices and demands of the industry being
serviced.See Gates Rubber, 9F.3d at 838; Computer Assocs. Int’l,
Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 709-10 (2d Cir. 1992); Plains
Cotton Coop. Assoc. v. Goodpasture Serv., Inc., 807 F.2d 1256, 1262
1635](5th Cir. 1987) (declining to extend protection to a computer
program where the similarities between the plaintiff’s and
defendant’s programs were dictated by the externalities of the
cotton market and by other market factors)

The Cyberlink decoder filter is not a necessary result of mpeg-2
decoding. The same need could result in the Elecard, MainConcept,
InterVideo or FFmpeg filters. The similarities between all these may
be the necessary result of mpeg-2 decoding (software standards and
compatibility requirements).

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

The original argument against was terrible.

You are very generous in characterizing it as an "argument".

Somewhere in all this is a great joke about people named Helen being
generally troublesome for Greeks, but I can't quite find it.

After googling around, it seems clear that some codecs presented as
freeware are actually freeware and others are not. It's hard to sort
out. Many of the ones that are freeware are either based on source
code released by a corporation or are written from scratch with
published standards as a guide. The ones that are not seem to be
mostly cracked versions of commmercial offerings.

Claims of software patents complicate things quite a bit. E.g.,
Fraunhofer claims a patent on mp3, but LAME disregards the patent and
releases the source of their codec under the LPGL. I also disregard
patent claims on software and data formats, so I have no problem with
using LAME. OTOH, I do respect copyrights, so I would not use
Fraunhofer's own codec without license.

ISTM we could classify codecs into three basic categories:

Codecs which are freeware beyond dispute. (Perhaps splitting
this in to two subcategories, free to distribute and "must be
obtained directly from copyright holder".)

Independently written codecs for formats for which there is a
patent claim by someone.

Codecs which are only cracked versions of commercial codecs.

I don't mess with codecs much, and I don't think I'd be willing to put
in a lot of time sorting them out -- there are just too many of them.
But as it stands now, anyone searching for codecs will find a lot of
warez on the web, complete with "this is freeware and don't let anyone
tell you it's not" notices. Maybe over time this group could sort
things out; the wiki might be a good way to do it.

 

[elaich]

Somewhere in all this is a great joke about people named Helen being
generally troublesome for Greeks, but I can't quite find it.

Helennic = Greek?

Yeah, I know it's spelled Hellenic.

 

[Bernard Peek]

I don't believe this question should be posed only as a "Fair use of
copyright material" [Helen], nor answered that way. Generally, an
expression of an idea is copyrightable, but not the idea itself.
The question should be whether a particular CODECS is copyrightable.

So, which is the idea and which is the expression in our case? I
venture that mpeg-2 decoding is the idea and the Cyberlink decoder is
the expression. Of course decoding a format should not be
copyrighted, the particular tools developed by someone for this
purpose, however, might.

That's right. You can write your own MPEG-2 decoder but you cannot use
code lifted from someone else's work. If you write the new program from
scratch there is no copyright issue. This is usually interpreted to mean
that once you have read the source code of a program it is risky to
attempt to write a new program that does the same job.

 

[Helen]

Fair Use was merely offered as an analogy to explain the apparent
allegations that FREEWARE designers/engineers/etc were STEALING
from commercial programs and that's where all this started! The Greek guy
seemed to have a sleepless night and wanted to get into a philosophical
discussion. I've no objection to philosophical discussions, but I work
12 hours per day and just didn't have the time nor inkling to get into
mental gymnastics. Fair Use is indeed an exception to copyright and
that's all I was trying to say about the OP's comment about Freeware
TAKING commercial programs and ... blah blah, blah...see above.

No, you are not wrong. K-Lite Codec Pack contains DivX Pro, 3ivx Pro,
and numerous commercial DVD decoders as well as the Real/Quicktime
codecs.

I don't believe this question should be posed only as a "Fair use of
copyright material" [Helen], nor answered that way. Generally, an
expression of an idea is copyrightable, but not the idea itself.
The question should be whether a particular CODECS is copyrightable.

Mitel v. Iqtel
http://digital-law-online.info/cases/44PQ2D1172.htm
"We have extended this traditional copyright doctrine to exclude
from protection against infringement those elements of a work that
necessarily result from external factors inherent in the subject
matter of the work. For computer-related applications, these
external factors include hardware standards and mechanical
specifications, software standards and compatibility requirements,
computer manufacturer design standards, industry programming
practices, and practices and demands of the industry being
serviced.See Gates Rubber, 9F.3d at 838; Computer Assocs. Int'l,
Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 709-10 (2d Cir. 1992); Plains
Cotton Coop. Assoc. v. Goodpasture Serv., Inc., 807 F.2d 1256, 1262
1635](5th Cir. 1987) (declining to extend protection to a computer
program where the similarities between the plaintiff's and
defendant's programs were dictated by the externalities of the
cotton market and by other market factors); see also 4 Melville B.
Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright Section 13.03[F] [3], at
13-130-141 (1997) [hereinafter Nimmer]. Because these factors
concern functional aspects of a work, the scenes a faire doctrine
plays a particularly important role in ensuring that copyright
rewards and stimulates artistic creativity in a utilitarian work in
a manner that permits the free use and development of
non-protectable ideas and processes that make the work useful.
Computer Assocs., 982 F.2d at 711."

As you can see from Helen's response, however, some people tend to
think that anything short of stealing twenty bucks out of someone's
pocket is covered by fair use. Can't say I'm surprised, though...

 

[George Skandalidis]

Γεια σου, ΓιώÏγο (translation: Hello, George)

Hi

I don't know whether the K-Lite packs redistribute copyrighted codecs,
but I suppose that, if the codecs in the packs are not unchanged, then
*at least some* reverse engineering must have been involved. In that
sense, one could certainly say that their legality is maybe marginal.

I doubt that. Going by their descriptions on various download sites,
they seem to actually include unaltered codecs. However, I know this
is a gray area, hence my question. The whole audiovisual compression
field seems to be an area of intense development and various patents,
copyrights and what-have-you are flying around. My question is where
we, as a freeware group, should draw the line both advocating user
convenience and denouncing warez.

For that matter, although the two may not be comparable, the same is
true about the VideoLan project (this is openly recognized by members of
the VideoLan team; see quote at the end).

Thank you. I knew this was coming and thought of actually preempting
it, so let me say that I don't find them comparable. VLC, which I use
both on Linux and, more recently, on Win is an excellent piece of
original work with many unique capabilities. It does not use the
registry, does not seem to mess with DirectX filters and only writes
an ini file and a plugins cache in one's Application Data directory.
It is excellent ,versatile and self-sufficient. That it may, under
close scrutiny, in some of its plugins, peripherally infringe on some
patents is not so damnable for me. It's creative work and not some
repackaging of quicktime in a different installer.

Now, both these packages are out for a long while, and none of the main
interested parties (MS, Apple, Real) has reacted AFAIK. Note also that a
well-respected site like BetaNews hosts both packages (and the parts
which make Mega Codec Pack) for download.

So, for my part, I keep using and recommending VLC and the K-Lite packs,
while watching for any official reactions.

Noted. For my part I will keep using and recommending VLC, MPC,
Mplayer (has anyone tried the windows port?), DVD Decrypter and other
software that I find original and creative, even if some issues of
patents are raised. In fact I will do so DISREGARDING any official
reactions. So, you got me there Florestan: the title of my post was a
blunder on my part. I am not really interested in the strict legal
aspects of the question because I fear that some time from now, VLC
and Mplayer may have legal problems while real warez will live and
prosper even off some dubious server.

What I would miss most if I had to drop them would be Real Alternative.
I had stopped listening to my beloved BBC Radio because I did not want
RealPlayer installed in my system. Since I discovered Real Alternative,
I can enjoy again BBC Radio.

Good for you. Keep using it. I was tempted once when a commercial
program required QT to be installed, but decided to ditch both. This
topic is not really a call to action, more like a call to awareness.

Here is a quote from a very interesting Builder.com interview with
members of the VideoLan team:

http://builder.com.com/5100-6375-5136135.html?tag=tt

Builder.com: What has been your biggest challenge?

DJ: Making VideoLAN user friendly.
SAM: Obtaining specifications for codecs and file formats. A lot of
reverse engineering was involved and some of this reverse engineering is
at the very border of the law in some parts of the world, and our
biggest challenge may come from individuals or entities trying to stop
us (using perverted legal systems, using the DMCA, the EUCD, etc.).
BP: Combining advanced features, ease of use, and maintainability is a
real mess ;-)

More power to them!

 

[Helen]

">

news:[email protected]:

I don't believe this question should be posed only as a "Fair use of
copyright material" [Helen], nor answered that way. Generally, an
expression of an idea is copyrightable, but not the idea itself.
The question should be whether a particular CODECS is copyrightable.

The above comment, "Generally, an expression of an idea is copyrightable but
not the idea itself."

STOP! Think about that! Without the expression is there an idea? If so
what difference, if any, does it make? That's like repeating the ancient
Philosophy 101 question: "if a tree falls in the woods and there's no one
to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Hello George, I hope you have no more sleepless nights. I empthasize!
I know what it's like and perhaps verbal wrangling via the internet can
help pass the time and even eliminate the insomnia, nonetheless I have
engaged in verbal gymnastics from time to time...but time grows more
precious as the days go by. My mention of the US constitution was for
clarity and not intended as a lecture on 'democracy'. The USA doesn't
have a democracy. But that's another topic for another time. My
interpretation of your initial post was to criticize and or condemn
Freeware for their piracy in that they allegedly were taking commercial
computer programs and offering them as Free. If I misunderstood you
then I apologize. But it all began with the case about David and how
he was ripped off and how I supported him! Nothing more, nothing
less. But it all goes to demonstrate the limitations of written words
and how different people interpret them. Absent the face to face, the
'real' context and all the nuances involved in communication (ergo the
comment about stripping a language from a culture and trying to
comphrend fully) much is lost. No harm was intended.

Helen

 

[George Skandalidis]

Fair Use was merely offered as an analogy to explain the apparent
allegations that FREEWARE designers/engineers/etc were STEALING
from commercial programs and that's where all this started! The Greek guy
seemed to have a sleepless night and wanted to get into a philosophical
discussion. I've no objection to philosophical discussions, but I work
12 hours per day and just didn't have the time nor inkling to get into
mental gymnastics. Fair Use is indeed an exception to copyright and
that's all I was trying to say about the OP's comment about Freeware
TAKING commercial programs and ... blah blah, blah...see above.

- I came for an argument!
- Sorry, this is abuse!

"The Argument Sketch" Monty Python

 

[George Skandalidis]

No harm was intended.

Yes, dear lady, I know. No hard feelings.

 

[David]

*snip*

That was actually sort of my point...sometimes I forget that sarcasm
doesn't travel well over the internet.

LOL. I just thought, given the attitude displayed, that it was better
to spell it out so there was no ambiguity.