LGPL VP6 decoder released

[dimzon]

So if you hadn't asked, then maybe they never would have noticed? Although presumably whoever got Siber's files deleted read this thread.

Anycase they must provide any comments. Just tell as: "Hey, this code is stolen and illegal".

[celtic_druid]

If it was stolen, they wouldn't want people to know.

[On2Tech]

We have previously and continue to be supporters of the open source community and have made significant contributions to open source video technology. As a public company, however, we feel that it is important to protect our intellectual property from abuse and to take all steps necessary to protect that property.

We therefore cannot support the unauthorized release of code that we believe has been illegally obtained or obtained in contravention of our licensing terms. We respect the hard work of the open source community and honor that work by observing contributors' copyrights and chosen licensing terms. In return, we expect the community to show the same respect to our works.

On2Tech

[dimzon]

We have previously and continue to be supporters of the open source community and have made significant contributions to open source video technology. As a public company, however, we feel that it is important to protect our intellectual property from abuse and to take all steps necessary to protect that property.

We therefore cannot support the unauthorized release of code that we believe has been illegally obtained or obtained in contravention of our licensing terms. We respect the hard work of the open source community and honor that work by observing contributors' copyrights and chosen licensing terms. In return, we expect the community to show the same respect to our works.

On2Tech
Ok, everyone understand it, no problem.

Just a little question/criticism - I asked On2 about legality of this code multiple times and does not get any response too long... Why?

[Wilbert]

We therefore cannot support the unauthorized release of code that we believe has been illegally obtained or obtained in contravention of our licensing terms. We respect the hard work of the open source community and honor that work by observing contributors' copyrights and chosen licensing terms. In return, we expect the community to show the same respect to our works.
I won't comment of this, since we still don't know whether the code is stolen or reverse engineered. If it is stolen, you are fully in your right ...

But could you release your modified SSIM code (0.24a) as I asked you in a pm?

[On2Tech]

Dimzon,

I am sorry that we have taken so long to respond.

In our defense, we felt that it was important to study the code first. Also, we have to be careful about making off the cuff statements in forums, without observing due process.

Wilbert,

Sorry about that, we have been busy getting the new VP7 release ready amongst other things :rolleyes: !! That said, we should at least have responded to your PM. A bit of a communications breakdown at our end I’m affraid. I will try and chase it up and get back to you ASAP.

On2Tech

[dimzon]

Dimzon,

I am sorry that we have taken so long to respond.

In our defense, we felt that it was important to study the code first. Also, we have to be careful about making off the cuff statements in forums, without observing due process.
Just interesting - is it stolen code or reversed code... As I said before in another thread - it's impossible to write legal vp62 decoder without bitstream specification avaluable - that why I asked On2 about this code legality (AFAIK there are no public bitstream specification avaluable )

[On2Tech]

Just interesting - is it stolen code or reversed code... As I said before in another thread - it's impossible to write legal vp62 decoder without bitstream specification avaluable - that why I asked On2 about this code legality (AFAIK there are no public bitstream specification avaluable )

Sorry, but for the time being I cannot say any more over and above the previous statement. I hope you will understand.

On2Tech

[dimzon]

You are talking about Theora (http://www.theora.org) , What contributions make now On2 on Theora development?
Theora is just VP32 from On2 :rolleyes:

[Sirber]

What about "nothing" ?

[temporance]

We have previously and continue to be supporters of the open source community and have made significant contributions to open source video technology. As a public company, however, we feel that it is important to protect our intellectual property from abuse and to take all steps necessary to protect that property.

We therefore cannot support the unauthorized release of code that we believe has been illegally obtained or obtained in contravention of our licensing terms. We respect the hard work of the open source community and honor that work by observing contributors' copyrights and chosen licensing terms. In return, we expect the community to show the same respect to our works.

On2Tech
My reading of this statement is that the code was stolen or leaked and found its way onto the Internet. If this is the case its release represents a copyright violation.

Aside from the possibility that the code could be used by MPEG patent holders to prove accidental patent infringement, I can't think of any reason why it is in On2's interests not to have this in the public domain. There is nothing mind-blowing in the algorithms used.

Now, if someone was to write a VP6 decoder from scratch without copying anything from the leaked code, the copyright problem goes away. We would then have an open-source implementation that can't be censored by On2's lawyers.

IMHO & IANAL

[dimzon]

Now, if someone was to write a VP6 decoder from scratch without copying anything from the leaked code, the copyright problem goes away.
t's impossible to write legal vp62 decoder without bitstream specification avaluable - (AFAIK there are no public bitstream specification avaluable )

[temporance]

t's impossible to write legal vp62 decoder without bitstream specification avaluable - (AFAIK there are no public bitstream specification avaluable )
Not impossible. Someone could have used the leaked code to write a new decoder. Or they could use the leaked code to write a bitstream spec that could then be used to write a clean and legal decoder. Copyright law only protects against copying and plagarism. The actual information is now public domain.

[dimzon]

Or they could use the leaked code to write a bitstream spec
It will be illegal too bcz original information is obtained by illegal way and such bitstream specification is derivated work of it.. And don't forget - On2 has patent on VP62 bitstream, isn't it?

As I said before it's impossible to get LGPL-ed decoder until On2 will publish VP62 bitstream specification...

So forget about VP62 and move to Theora/ASP/AVC/Snow/Dirac

[Gusar]

@dimzon: I think you're underestimating the reverse-engineering skills of ffmpeg developers. They are fully capable of creating a vp6 decoder without looking at the leaked code and without having the official bitstream spec.

[bond]

i assume on2 would know for sure if its code from themselves that has been released without approval.

therefore reading on2s statements i assume more that its reverse engineered, and on2 isnt sure whether its illegal to release code reverse engineering their format and therefore they cant make 100% clear statements

another possibility would be that they know that the code released is their own code, but they dont want to say it publically because it would give their competitors the info that its on2's code (which they now dont know for sure...)

Theora is just VP32 from On2 :rolleyes:no, its not the same
check the specs, or at least my theora sticky, which both list the differences before guessing

[temporance]

i assume on2 would know for sure if its code from themselves that has been released without approval.
Yes, but the vagueness and slow turnaround time could be down to their lawyers.

therefore reading on2s statements i assume more that its reverse engineered, and on2 isnt sure whether its illegal to release code reverse engineering their format and therefore they cant make 100% clear statements
It certainly did not look like reverse-engineered code, more like "laundered" corporate code. If this is the case, it may have taken them a while to prove to their lawyers that it was copied.

IMHO a decoder written without copying anything of VP6 is not illegal. It does not matter whether it was created through reverse engineering, from a spec or by learning from leaked source. The act of reverse engineering is probably a breach of On2's license, but that wouldn't make the resultant code illegal especially if the reverse engineer did not agree to that license. A person who leaks source is guilty of at least copyright infringement and possibly contract violation, if they have a contract with On2.

My point is that even if reverse engineering and/or a leak help someone to write and release a clean decoder implementation, On2 can really only use a very weak (it's source code, not a working product) patent infringement case to get the code pulled. Assuming they have patents covering VP6 decoding, which they may not. IANAL.

another possibility would be that they know that the code released is their own code, but they dont want to say it publically because it would give their competitors the info that its on2's code (which they now dont know for sure...)
Good point. But the genie's out of the bag now, whether or not the decoder code is actually On2's own, competitors (and open source devs :) ) can deduce the precise algorithms of VP6.

[temporance]

@dimzon: I think you're underestimating the reverse-engineering skills of ffmpeg developers. They are fully capable of creating a vp6 decoder without looking at the leaked code and without having the official bitstream spec.
Gusar,
IMHO&IANAL it wouldn't matter if ffmpeg devs looked at the leaked code so long as they didn't copy it.

[Gusar]

Gusar,
IMHO&IANAL it wouldn't matter if ffmpeg devs looked at the leaked code so long as they didn't copy it.

Yes, the Chinese wall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Computer_science) approach could work here maybe. One person reads the code and writes an open spec, then another person writes new code based on that spec.
Though considering how sue happy everyone is nowadays, even this could be problematic. It's probably safer to stay away from that code (assuming it really is stolen/leaked) and implement a decoder with pure reverse engineering.

But the point I wanted to make is that dimzon said it's impossible to write a decoder without On2 releasing the bitstream spec. This is simply not true. It only takes a skilled developer and - most important - lots of time. And the ffmpeg devs definitely have the required skills.

[MfA]

My reading of this statement is that the code was stolen or leaked and found its way onto the Internet.
He implied a lot, but said nothing ... quite intentionally. There is a term for the kind of statement On2Tech gave, FUD.

On2Tech, it would have been more gracefull to simply give a no comment for the moment IMO.

[dimzon]

But the point I wanted to make is that dimzon said it's impossible to write a decoder without On2 releasing the bitstream spec. This is simply not true. It only takes a skilled developer and - most important - lots of time. And the ffmpeg devs definitely have the required skills.
You can't write decoder without bitstream spec. You can obtain bitstream spec via such ways:

published bitstream spec from format developer (on2)
perform reverse-enginearing (it's illegal and prohibited by On2 licence)
steal bitstream or decoder souce (it's illegal too)

[bond]

can anyone show me the link to the laws (american, european...) making reverse engineering illegal?

[dimzon]

can anyone show me the link to the laws (american, european...) making reverse engineering illegal?
I believe vp62 licence is the same:

<skiped>
You may NOT:
<skiped>
3. reverse engineer, de-compile, disassemble, modify, port, optimize, integrate, translate, make any attempt to discover the source code or resources of the Software or create derivative works based on the Software;
<skiped>

[clsid]

In some European countries licenses don't have much legal weight. So if the law allows reverse-engineering, then nothing in a license can change that.

[dimzon]

In some European countries licenses don't have much legal weight. So if the law allows reverse-engineering, then nothing in a license can change that.
So obtained decoder will be legal only in this countries....

[bond]

who needs to care about a license you have never signed? i heavily doubt this has any value

[Doom9]

even the DMCA has a reverse engineering excemption for interoperability reasons.. judges just never read it (or don't understand, are paid not to understand.. just goes to show we need people with knowledge of the law and technology in courts.. they even teach copyright and patent law at engineering colleges today so why should it be any different from those on the other side of the bench?)

[Elic]

clsid >> In some European countries licenses don't have much legal weight.
I'm not sure much but IMHO Russian laws says that license is much legal than law.
dimzon > obtained decoder will be legal only in this countries
I don't think so. If user of reverse-engineering-specs-based codec has no business with original codec then he owes nothing to original copyright owner, is he? :)

[Shapierian]

You can't write decoder without bitstream spec. You can obtain bitstream spec via such ways:

published bitstream spec from format developer (on2)
perform reverse-enginearing (it's illegal and prohibited by On2 licence)
steal bitstream or decoder souce (it's illegal too)

reverse-engineering in the USA is only illegal if it is to circumvent a copy control-device, reverse engineering for compatibility is protected. You don't need to agree to On2's license to download vp6 bitstreams, only to get the encoder and decoder.

So obtained decoder will be legal only in this countries....
Sneakers made overseas use manufacturing processes illegal in the USA that doesn't make importing the shoes illegal.

[madman1980]

I really hope a future version of ffdshow will include this. I can't stand having to install several codecs...

[Sharktooth]

I really hope a future version of ffdshow will include this. I can't stand having to install several codecs...
if you read the whole thread you would have known that code is ILLEGAL.

[bond]

if you read the whole thread you would have known that code is ILLEGAL.depends propably on the country you are in

(also you could try to pay on2 licenses for using their patents ;) )

[lrms]

I think we must separate two things:

1) Decompiling/disassembling the code itself (what is some dirty sort of reverse-engineer)
2) "Black box" reverse-engineering (i.e. playing with something to see how it works, but without "breaking" it)

The first tries to extract the code from the binaries, even if it's only assembly it could be used to build another program.

The second can use the binary to see what comes out when something comes in, but is stop there, the contents of the binaries are otherwise untouched.

I believe the first is clearly illegal in most countries, but the second should be perfectly legal.

IMHO it seems the license only prohibits the first (messing with their code).

My $.02

[rjamorim]

http://www.rarewares.org/index.html

Anyone surprised?

[dimzon]

http://www.rarewares.org/index.html

Anyone surprised?

Sticking to its good old tradition of hosting controversial stuff, RareWares is hosting the recently released LGPLd sources to an On2 VP6 video decoder. On2 is strongly stomping on anyone hosting the sources without providing any legal proof that it indeed belongs to them and that it isn't a fair and legal reverse engineering effort. Fortunately, RareWares doesn't have a tendency of believing in FUD...
what does FUD mean

[celtic_druid]

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative and vague or inaccurate information on a competitor's product. The term originated to describe misinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD

Basically ON2 have people believing that the code is illegal without providing anything close to proof.

As for "purportedly serves to decode On2 VP6 streams". The test player worked fine when I tried it on a VP6 FLV file.

[rjamorim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD

Basically ON2 have people believing that the code is illegal without providing anything close to proof.

Right. If they provide some sort of proof that the code is indeed ©On2, I'll take it offline, after all, RareWares doesn't want to get involved in theft. But, honestly, for all that it matters, it seems to me they have been just vague about the ownership of that code so far.

As for "purportedly serves to decode On2 VP6 streams". The test player worked fine when I tried it on a VP6 FLV file.

Ah, interesting! Thanks for the information. I updated the page accordingly.


Maybe I should contact mr. "Zeitoun Padli" for further information. Does anyone have his e-mail address, by any chance?

Edit: nevermind, I found his e-mail on Sourceforge
http://sourceforge.net/users/ztoon-padli/

[celtic_druid]

You are of course welcome to mirror the binary I compiled to if you want. Could also update mpeg4ip, etc. if they are still old versions.

[rjamorim]

You are of course welcome to mirror the binary I compiled to if you want. Could also update mpeg4ip, etc. if they are still old versions.

MPEG4ip is indeed sadly outdated. I shall take care of these tonight, when I return home.

Thank-you very much

[videomixer9]

Isn't ffdshow and xvid also illegal in the US? at least as a free binary download without acquiring licenses for the used codecs? Just remember how popular US-based Linux distributions didn't even include MP3 support (fedora, redhat).

[rjamorim]

Isn't ffdshow and xvid also illegal in the US? at least as a free binary download without acquiring licenses for the used codecs? Just remember how popular US-based Linux distributions didn't even include MP3 support (fedora, redhat).

It's illegal in a whole different way, so it's sort of legal. Dig it? :D

The problem with ffdshow and xvid is patent infrigement. The (alleged) problem with libvp62 is copyright infrigement. While distributing patented stuff without paying license fees is problematic, distributing copyrighted stuff without permission from the righs owner is considered plain theft.

[videomixer9]

So why post that here, now you got no excuse anymore about not knowing that it may be stolen. Patent infrigement or theft, in both cases you know that it is not really legal you shouldn't use it anymore if you were honest. After all they stole the ideas from the original inventor with the patents, technically almost the same, except that the stealing an idea concept is not accepted in many countries, for a good reason too.

Just host it in China, China still doesn't have copyright laws iirc. :O same trick as with the patents ...

[rjamorim]

So why post that here, now you got no excuse anymore about not knowing that it may be stolen.

Key word there is "may".

Patent infrigement or theft, in both cases you know that it is not really legal you shouldn't use it anymore if you were honest.

Who said I'm infriging their patents? Is it patented even? And even if it is, they never sent me any e-mail asking for patent fees. Distributing patented stuff is actually legal as long as the patent owner isn't collecting licensing fees. That's why I said distributing patented stuff is problematic, but not illegal.

[dragongodz]

Isn't ffdshow and xvid also illegal in the US? at least as a free binary download without acquiring licenses for the used codecs?
i wont comment on ffdshow but xvid binaries are not illegal. you are allowed to distribute up to 50,000 before you have to pay royalties to the mpegla. this HAS been discussed in the past many times.
http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4v-faq.cfm

EDIT:
if you want to discuss things about xvid then its section of the forum is the place to really do it. after searching first of course. ;)

[rjamorim]

You are of course welcome to mirror the binary I compiled to if you want. Could also update mpeg4ip, etc. if they are still old versions.

I am now hosting your binary there, and updated MPEG4ip as well. Thank-you very much!

[Sirber]

@rjamorim

Any legal letters yet?

[rjamorim]

@rjamorim

Any legal letters yet?

Surprisingly enough, no. Neither to me, or to the people that are helping me host the noise chains. That probably means that they either don't care anymore, or got convinced that noise chain makes things harder on them to go C&D servers, or (less likely) they didn't notice what RareWares is doing yet.

[Sirber]

I looked at your NoiseChain tool, and the java only "download". How can I make one?

[rjamorim]

I looked at your NoiseChain tool, and the java only "download". How can I make one?

Just run the app from the command line ($ java -jar nchain.jar) and the option to make chains will appear. Basicly, you need to feed it the file that will be turned into a chain and a txt file containing a list of urls, one per line, where each part of the chain will be stored.

[rjamorim]

Let's get the ball rolling, shall we?

Dear Mr. Amorim:

The letter below was sent on April 12 to Mr. Edwards, but we now understand that you are also responsible for the rarewares.com site. Please understand the urgency of this matter and act to remove the code.

Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail communication and any action taken.

Thank you,

George Brieger
Levisohn, Berger & Langsam LLP
805 Third Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, New York 10022
Tel: (212) 486-7272 Ext. 311
Fax: (212) 486-0323
www.LLBL.com





April 12, 2006
Subject: Copyright Violation on rarewares.org

Dear Sir or Madam:

This firm represents On2 Technologies Inc. in connection with intellectual property and related matters. On2 owns a proprietary decoder called VP6.2, which has been copied, reverse engineered and posted to and published on your website at

http://www.rarewares.org

On2 has devoted considerable resources and software developer hours on the VP 6.2 project. 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. To the extent this is the case, you are in violation of DMCA and provisions of international copyright law.

Moreover, the user licensee that is agreed to when accessing VP 6.2 from On2 Technologies provides, in relevant part, that:

"You may NOT:
1...
2...
3. reverse engineer, de-compile, disassemble, modify, translate, make
any attempt to discover the source code or resources of the Software or
create derivative works based on the Software;"

Accordingly, the person who posted the VP6.2 code on your site breached his agreement with On2 by reverse engineering VP6.2 and posted unlawful content to your site.

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

Therefore, we insist that you immediately remove the code from your website and from all backup maintenance systems and mirror sites available to the public. Your continued dissemination on your website is causing irreparable harm to On2 because any number of unknown parties is likely to download and use the code, and every moment that it is posted is increasing the damages. 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.

Should you have any questions, please contact me. Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail and any action taken by replying to me.

Very truly yours,
LEVISOHN, BERGER & LANGSAM LLP



Peter L. Berger

Peter L. Berger, Esq.
Levisohn, Berger & Langsam LLP
805 Third Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, New York 10022
pberger@LLBL.com
Tel: (212) 486-7272 Ext. 309
Fax: (212) 486-0323
www.LLBL.com

**************************************************************************
Notice: This message is intended only for use by the named addressee and may contain privileged and / or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited: please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, destroy and hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately. Thank You



God, I love living in South America.

The part teat cracked me up the most is the DMCA bit. I'll comment further on this letter (and reply to Herr Berger) later, as I am at work right now. God bless this mess.