LGPL VP6 decoder released

[Sirber]

Originally Posted by rjamorim

God bless this mess.

I know you love it

[Lemonzest]

"The damage in this instance is irreparable, and you must remove the code from its site to stop its participation in damaging On2. Time is of the essence."

as i understand its only a DECODER that has been made, would that not make VP6.2 MORE valuable now it can be played back on opensource platforms and/or mac os x? leading more people to adopt it?

[Sirber]

Originally Posted by Lemonzest

as i understand its only a DECODER that has been made, would that not make VP6.2 MORE valuable now it can be played back on opensource platforms and/or mac os x? leading more people to adopt it?

And more patent holder to analyze the code and sue On2. US is well reknown to sue everyone for any reasons

[Sirber]

@rjamorim

Can you put a download counter on the link?

[MfA]

Based on our client's preliminary comparison of the posted code with VP6.2, there appear to be substantial similarities in design elements and structure. Accordingly, On2's copyright in VP6.2 is infringed.

That last sentence is a complete non sequitur. Similarity does not mean the code was copied, the underlying algorithms will enforce structure.

On2, you are reading this ... if you are reasonably sure the code was copy pasted just come out and say so (or at least let your lawyers known that using sophism reflects poorly on them and you). You will instantly get most people here on your side, me at least.

I know being this harsh might seem ungratefull and biting the hand that feeds us, but you knowingly stuck your hand in a lion's den in the first place I think if you try plain words (ie. don't let the lawyers talk for you) you will find people to be much less confrontational.

[rjamorim]

Originally Posted by Sirber

@rjamorim

Can you put a download counter on the link?

That would only count how many people downloaded the java app, not the chain itself :/

But a quick glance over apache's logs tells me more than 50 people downloaded it already.

[rjamorim]

Originally Posted by MfA

That last sentence is a complete non sequitur. Similarity does not mean the code was copied, the underlying algorithms will enforce structure.

Hope you don't mind, I'll use these arguments on my reply :B

Here are some more excerpts from it:

Originally Posted by Roberto's reply

It's actually interesting that you mention the DMCA. As far as I have been told,
the DMCA protects citizens' rights to reverse engineer undocumented routines, as long
as that is meant for interoperability purposes (which is obviously the purpose of the
source codes I'm hosting at my website, as they allow the playback of VP6.2 on such
operating systems that go ignored by On2 as Linux, Mac OS X and, matter of factly,
every single Unix derivative out there). Again as far as I have been told, the DMCA
only prohibits reverse engineering on systems related to copyright protection. As
VP6.2 is obviously no DRM framework, that is not the case.

So, as the law actually permits reverse engineering in the scope used for the
sources hosted at my site, it doesn't matter what your license allows people to do
or not.

Last but not least, there are several cases of reverse engineering for the sake
of interoperability on the net. Obviously the most famous case is FFMPEG, that hosts
reverse engineered sources for Windows Media Audio (they reverse engineered Microsoft,
of all people!), Sorenson Video, QDesign Music Codec, etc.

Then, there is the case of OpenOffice.org, that systematically reverse engineers
the file formats used by Microsoft Office's applications. Up to a few months ago, these
formats were not documented (now they are, as an ECMA RFC)

Last but not least, do you have any way to prove these sources weren't reverse
engineered on a "clean room" setup? As far as I know, that would make it completely legal,
as exemplified by Compaq's pioneer work reverse engineering the IBM PC BIOS and giving
birth to the PC Clone market.

> We have contacted other websites that were posting our client's code, and the sites
> immediately removed the code in response to our report.

Too bad they don't have any legal background to know better.

You will instantly get most people here on your side, me at least.

Heck, even I would bring down the downloads if they managed to provide me proof that the code was indeed stolen from them.

[celtic_druid]

Even if the code did breach the DMCA, would that not only have an effect in the USA? The DMCA does not cover actions outside of the USA.

What there should be a law against is companies knowingly misusing the DMCA as a legal threat.

[iwod]

Originally Posted by celtic_druid

Even if the code did breach the DMCA, would that not only have an effect in the USA? The DMCA does not cover actions outside of the USA.

What there should be a law against is companies knowingly misusing the DMCA as a legal threat.

celtic you should host it over at Aus ^^

[celtic_druid]

Who said I wasn't already?
I think Brazil is safer than Australia though. What with our sell out government and all.

[Sirber]

How about sweden? thepiratebay love those kind of letters

[celtic_druid]

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/et...CODE.HTM#7-102
Maybe people should start reporting these attorneys? Lying about the DMCA, etc. sounds like a breech of ethics to me.

[rjamorim]

Originally Posted by celtic_druid

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/et...CODE.HTM#7-102
Maybe people should start reporting these attorneys? Lying about the DMCA, etc. sounds like a breech of ethics to me.

Hrm... interesting

Indeed, I completely disagree with On2's strongarmed attitude so far. "We're not even sure the code is really stolen or illegal in any way, but let's FUD everybody hosting it into deleting, as it would require much less effort than actually providing proofs of illegality"

And I agree that lawyers are getting out of hand. They start waving the DMCA at the smallest situations, as if it was some magical bullet for FUD purposes. Highly unethical attitude.

[dragongodz]

hmm the interesting part i find in all this is that On2 appear from that to not know for sure if its stolen code(just saying it looks similar) or reverse engineered.

the use of the "breaking EULA" is also questionable. i mean it is possible to get the dll without installing VP6 and if a person looks hard enough i am sure it could be downloaded from places that dont have an agreement before download either. so in such a case you wouldnt be breaking anything because you didnt agree to anything.

finally when a EULA makes restrictions to rights a countries laws say you actually have wouldnt this put the EULA on questionable legal grounds ? sorry i am not a lawyer but i would find it strange for a bit of text on a web page or in an installer to over-ride actual laws but hey with the ways some countries work nowdays who knows. i would be interested to hear what any third party/unbiased legal eagles has to say on that.

at the moments this is all looking like a big mess. saying they are not lawyers and prefer to be just doing their work rather than running around after this code seems to me to have exploded somewhat in their face. its certainly not winning freinds by sicking the lawyers instead of a personal email. anyone on the ffmpeg dev mailing list will have already seen this aswell.

[On2Tech]

Speaking as an engineer I think that it is inconceivable that this code was created as part of some “clever” black box reverse engineering exercise. I am not a lawyer but just so that you know “there appear to be substantial similarities” in this context means that large chucks of code can be matched up and shown to be LINE FOR LINE identical with one of our older source code trees. The author has changed a few variable names etc, but in many cases that is about it.

Also, the code contains references to things that were changed slightly in later versions of the VP6 bitstream (including FLASH 8) which further confirms that it could not possibly have been created by reverse engineering from Flash content.

Finally, as for the damage it causes On2.... Revenue from sales of VP6 continues to contribute significantly to our bottom line. This is a current revenue generating product, so of course we are concerned about the distribution of ripped off / stolen code.

On2Tech

[Sharktooth]

At this point it's useless to take down the downloads (the code is already floating around on P2Ps too )... but IMHO releasing an official open source free for non commercial use decoder will make no harm to on2, will solve all problems and possibly bring on2 some new *nix customers.

EDIT: Sorry for the confusion. I mixed up free-codecs with rarewares and i thought (from the filename) the file was published on P2Ps. So no worry... it's not there

[MfA]

On2Tech, in that case Im very sorry for you this happened and I hope rjamorim takes the code down soon.

[rjamorim]

Originally Posted by MfA

On2Tech, in that case Im very sorry for you this happened and I hope rjamorim takes the code down soon.

What, you think I was born yesterday? That's not what I meant when I said I wanted proof.

BTW: Their lawyers didn't reply yet. My reply to their first C&D was sent this morning.

[dragongodz]

I am not a lawyer but just so that you know “there appear to be substantial similarities” in this context means that large chucks of code can be matched up and shown to be LINE FOR LINE identical with one of our older source code trees. The author has changed a few variable names etc, but in many cases that is about it.

and this is more information than you have been willing to share before.
a good point was also raised on the ffmpeg dev mailing list. when an OSS author claims his code has been ripped off the first thing he is asked for is atleast some kind of proof. the same has been expected from On2 but you guys have not shown anything. are you really surprised people are questioning your actions of sicking the lawyers to say it MAY have been stolen ? come on On2Tech surely you can see what a PR mess these actions have made even if you are right ?
you have been around here long enough to know if you treat this community(and i mean more than just the Doom9 users) with a little respect and openness they are willing to help and support you back. as someone who helped beta test for you guys in the past i know this is so. however sicking the lawyers on this same community causes nothing but bad blood in the end.

Also, the code contains references to things that were changed slightly in later versions of the VP6 bitstream (including FLASH 8) which further confirms that it could not possibly have been created by reverse engineering from Flash content.

and these things could not have come from a person reversing older content or an older version of the dll etc i take it ?

[foxyshadis]

He's an engineer, he's probably on rather unsteady footing just talking about it. Statements on here could be used in discovery or court, like email, at a later date. (I'm not sure what the exact legal grounds of forum postings are, but they have to be a lot firmer than heresay.) If you want to rant to someone, call up On2's legal, or directors, or someone else higher up in the food chain.

Yes, I think the lawyers handling this so far are rather brain-damaged, since this could all have been resolved a month ago with a little private code-sharing and a few announcements about the obviousness of the theft; but they're lawyers, that's what they're here for.