LGPL VP6 decoder released [Archive]

hellfred

20th March 2006, 19:32

I am not really good at c and c++ but isn't allocating variables on the stack over and over in a loop very slow?
void VP62::iDCT8x8(int b)
{
int src = 0;
int dst = 0;
int row, col;
short *output = block8x8[b];
int scoeff[64]; // Scaled coeffs
int c;

for(c = 0; c < 64; c++) {
scoeff[zigzag[c]] = coeff420[b][c] * coeffScale[c];
}

// 64277 = Cos PI/16 * 65536
#define COS_1_16 64277
// 60547 = Cos 2xPI/16 * 65536
#define COS_2_16 60547
// 54491 = Cos 3xPI/16 * 65536
#define COS_3_16 54491
// 46341 = Cos 4xPI/16 * 65536
#define COS_4_16 46341
// 36410 = Cos 5xPI/16 * 65536
#define COS_5_16 36410
// 25080 = Cos 6xPI/16 * 65536
#define COS_6_16 25080
// 12785 = Cos 7xPI/16 * 65536
#define COS_7_16 12785

for(row = 0; row < 8; row++) {
int x0 = scoeff[src];
int x1 = scoeff[src + 1];
int x2 = scoeff[src + 2];
int x3 = scoeff[src + 3];
int x4 = scoeff[src + 4];
int x5 = scoeff[src + 5];
int x6 = scoeff[src + 6];
int x7 = scoeff[src + 7];
if (x0 | x1 | x2 | x3 | x4 | x5 | x6 | x7) {
int t0 = ((COS_1_16 * x1) >> 16) + ((COS_7_16 * x7) >> 16);
int t1 = ((COS_7_16 * x1) >> 16) - ((COS_1_16 * x7) >> 16);
int t2 = ((COS_3_16 * x3) >> 16) + ((COS_5_16 * x5) >> 16);
int t3 = ((COS_3_16 * x5) >> 16) - ((COS_5_16 * x3) >> 16);
int u0 = (COS_4_16 * (t0 - t2)) >> 16;
int u1 = (COS_4_16 * (t1 - t3)) >> 16;
int u2 = t0 + t2;
int u3 = t1 + t3;
int t4 = (COS_4_16 * (x0 + x4)) >> 16;
int t5 = (COS_4_16 * (x0 - x4)) >> 16;
int t6 = ((COS_2_16 * x2) >> 16) + ((COS_6_16 * x6) >> 16);
int t7 = ((COS_6_16 * x2) >> 16) - ((COS_2_16 * x6) >> 16);
int u4 = t4 - t6;
int u5 = t4 + t6;
int v0 = t5 + u0;
int v1 = u1 - t7;
int v2 = t5 - u0;
int v3 = u1 + t7;
scoeff[src] = u5 + u2;
scoeff[src + 7] = u5 - u2;
scoeff[src + 1] = v0 + v3;
scoeff[src + 2] = v0 - v3;
scoeff[src + 3] = u4 + u3;
scoeff[src + 4] = u4 - u3;
scoeff[src + 5] = v2 + v1;
scoeff[src + 6] = v2 - v1;
}
src += 8;
}

src = 0;
for(col = 0; col < 8; col++) {
int x0 = scoeff[src];
int x1 = scoeff[src + 8];
int x2 = scoeff[src + 16];
int x3 = scoeff[src + 24];
int x4 = scoeff[src + 32];
int x5 = scoeff[src + 40];
int x6 = scoeff[src + 48];
int x7 = scoeff[src + 56];
if (x0 | x1 | x2 | x3 | x4 | x5 | x6 | x7) {
int t0 = ((COS_1_16 * x1) >> 16) + ((COS_7_16 * x7) >> 16);
int t1 = ((COS_7_16 * x1) >> 16) - ((COS_1_16 * x7) >> 16);
int t2 = ((COS_3_16 * x3) >> 16) + ((COS_5_16 * x5) >> 16);
int t3 = ((COS_3_16 * x5) >> 16) - ((COS_5_16 * x3) >> 16);
int u0 = (COS_4_16 * (t0 - t2)) >> 16;
int u1 = (COS_4_16 * (t1 - t3)) >> 16;
int u2 = t0 + t2;
int u3 = t1 + t3;
int t4 = (COS_4_16 * (x0 + x4)) >> 16;
int t5 = (COS_4_16 * (x0 - x4)) >> 16;
int t6 = ((COS_2_16 * x2) >> 16) + ((COS_6_16 * x6) >> 16);
int t7 = ((COS_6_16 * x2) >> 16) - ((COS_2_16 * x6) >> 16);
int u4 = t4 - t6;
int u5 = t4 + t6;
int v0 = t5 + u0;
int v1 = u1 - t7;
int v2 = t5 - u0;
int v3 = u1 + t7;
output[dst] = (short)((u5 + u2 + 8) >> 4);
output[dst + 56] = (short)((u5 - u2 + 8) >> 4);
output[dst + 8] = (short)((v0 + v3 + 8) >> 4);
output[dst + 16] = (short)((v0 - v3 + 8) >> 4);
output[dst + 24] = (short)((u4 + u3 + 8) >> 4);
output[dst + 32] = (short)((u4 - u3 + 8) >> 4);
output[dst + 40] = (short)((v2 + v1 + 8) >> 4);
output[dst + 48] = (short)((v2 - v1 + 8) >> 4);
} else {
output[dst] = 0;
output[dst + 8] = 0;
output[dst + 16] = 0;
output[dst + 24] = 0;
output[dst + 32] = 0;
output[dst + 40] = 0;
output[dst + 48] = 0;
output[dst + 56] = 0;
}
src++;
dst++;
}
}
Taken from VP62.cpp (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/libvp62/libvp62/VP62/VP62.cpp?rev=1.1.1.1&view=markup)

Nic

20th March 2006, 19:38

hellfred

20th March 2006, 19:45

@hellfred: Compilers are pretty good at optimizing things like that. I noticed things like that in SNOW, but when I came to look at the optimized assembler of it, I realised the compiler had already taken care of it.

-Nic
And on the other hand on the ffmpeg mailing list, ppl get advised to use unsigned integers and shift operators instead of devisions with integers (int, a/2^n) to squeez as much speed out of c/c++ code as possible. Strange world...

Hellfred

dimzon

20th March 2006, 19:56

I hope this is not stolen code!

Sharktooth

20th March 2006, 20:00

more info: http://libvp62.sourceforge.net/

hellfred

20th March 2006, 20:17

So ffdshow will decode VP6 too... interesting ! :scared:
Not through libavcodec, as they will not include c++ code. (The vp6 decoder lib in question is programmed in c++). But maybe Milan will include it directly, as he did with many other libraries.

Hellfred
Ooophs, it looks like i was wrong about libavcodec:
[Ffmpeg-devel] VP62 libraries now Open Source
Alex Beregszaszi alex at fsn.hu
Mon Mar 20 19:53:28 CET 2006
Hi,

> > > Please stop considering the inclusion of the code as it is into ffmpeg.
> > > Big parts of the code could reuse vp3.c and our rangecoder.
> > >
> >
> > who is volunteering for adding the missing bits in ffmpeg then?
>
> I'm considering doing it.

How far are you? As I planned/started it today. If you have more time
than I, take it :)

So two developers from ffmped mailing lists plan to enhance libavcodec's vp3 decoder to be able to decode vp6.2, too. Let's see if they will actually do it. But wasn't one of vp6's strong points the postprocessing of the decoder. It will be hard to replace it.

Hellfred

Sirber

20th March 2006, 20:59

Could be cool to have a ffmpeg2vp6 like we have for theora :)

akupenguin

20th March 2006, 21:09

And on the other hand on the ffmpeg mailing list, ppl get advised to use unsigned integers and shift operators instead of devisions with integers (int, a/2^n) to squeez as much speed out of c/c++ code as possible. Strange world...

That's unsigned integers or shift operators... because x/2 is not the same as x>>1 for signed x, so no compiler is allowed to optimize one into the other.

bond

20th March 2006, 21:50

Could be cool to have a ffmpeg2vp6 like we have for theora :)lol, me wants a ffmpeg2h265 :rolleyes: :p

Sirber

20th March 2006, 22:06

lol, me wants a ffmpeg2h265 :rolleyes: :pCare to explain more? I don't get it.

hellfred

20th March 2006, 22:32

That's unsigned integers or shift operators... because x/2 is not the same as x>>1 for signed x, so no compiler is allowed to optimize one into the other.
I am not sure if I understood you correct.
I wanted to express that ppl are advised to change
int x = 8;
int y = x/2;tounsigned int x = 8;
unsigned y = x >> 1;
So they are supposed to use unsigned int together with the shift operator.
here (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vclang/html/_clang_bitwise_shift_operators.asp).
Hellfred

Small programm to test:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
unsigned int x = 8;
x = x >> 1; // x/2
cout << x << endl;
x = x >> 1; // x/2
cout << x << endl;
unsigned int y = 2;
y = y << 1; // y*2
cout << y << endl;
y = y << 1; // y*2
cout << y << endl;
return 0;
}
will outputhaibane@LapLap:~/tmp$ g++ shift.cpp -o shift
haibane@LapLap:~/tmp$ ./shift
4
2
4
8

akupenguin

21st March 2006, 00:57

I am not sure if I understood you correct.
I wanted to express that ppl are advised to change
int x = 8;
int y = x/2;tounsigned int x = 8;
unsigned y = x >> 1;
So they are supposed to use unsigned int together with the shift operator.
That was not quite the advice. First, since x is a constant, the math will be optimized away either way. So consider:
int munge0(int x) { return x/2; }
If x is really always nonnegative, that should be changed to any one of
int munge1(int x) { return x>>1; }
int munge2(unsigned int x) { return x/2; }
int munge3(unsigned int x) { return x>>1; }
...which are all equivalent, and faster than the 1st version.
munge1 though munge3 will be compiled into a single shift instruction. munge0 can't, because (-1)>>1 != (-1)/2

IgorC

21st March 2006, 01:39

I'm not a video dev so don't push on me hard but maybe if they used signed int it will be also possible to verifire if integer is negative (complement to 2) by masking it with something like 0x80 and do optimisation only if integer >0

Nice decoder but still no information about it from on2 (they are too busy with a new generation of vp8/vp9 :p )

hellfred

21st March 2006, 10:53

Thanks for enligthning me, akupenguing.
Can you suggest a source that will teach me lots of c/c++ tweaks like the use of the shift operator for division with 2^n on unsigneded integers. I had c / c++ lessons only for about 1 year at university, and they mainly covered the basic. So I do need to learn those tricks to be ever able to understand the sourcecode of projects like x264/mplayer/ffmpeg. And understanding is required before I am able to help with such projects.

Hellfred

bratao

21st March 2006, 13:49

I think that its Official code, not Reversed code..
The code is So clear , commented and dosnt have Magics numbers

dimzon

21st March 2006, 14:01

I think that its Official code, not Reversed code..
The code is So clear , commented and dosnt have Magics numbers
Or stolen...

gabest

21st March 2006, 14:29

munge1 though munge3 will be compiled into a single shift instruction. munge0 can't, because (-1)>>1 != (-1)/2
Not a single shift, but it can be done with two additional instructions: (eax = -1)
(-1)>>1: sar eax, 1
(-1)/2: cdq / sub eax, edx / sar eax, 1

Sirber

22nd March 2006, 13:20

@dizmon

you should update your post "On2 VP7 is great in quality but it is unusable for long-term video backup puposes!" since now VP62 is opensource ;)

dimzon

22nd March 2006, 13:24

@dizmon

you should update your post "On2 VP7 is great in quality but it is unusable for long-term video backup puposes!" since now VP62 is opensource ;)
Done ;)

Sirber

22nd March 2006, 13:27

anyone heard of a CLI VP6 encoder that input AVS?

dimzon

22nd March 2006, 13:42

anyone heard of a CLI VP6 encoder that input AVS?
Just wait a little - it will be assimilated by ffmpeg

Adz

22nd March 2006, 13:43

so let me get this right, there will soon be an ffmpeg build with the ability to produce VP6 based FLV files?

I currently use ffmpeg alot to produce FLV files, not sure what the video codec name is but it's pretty bad in comparison to equivelent sized WMV's i've produced. This would be great.

hellfred

22nd March 2006, 13:45

anyone heard of a CLI VP6 encoder that input AVS?Sirber, you are ahead of time. Though the project aims to implement both the decoder and encoder for VP6, there is only the decoder at the moment. So you have to go ask On2 for any encoder app.

Hellfred

Adz

22nd March 2006, 13:46

sorry to go OFT, but are there any better codecs that can be used in FLV (and decodable by standard flash player) that are better than the one built into ffmpeg (sorry dont know name of the actual codec used ffmpeg).

Sirber

22nd March 2006, 14:27

@hellfred

Thanks for the info!

celtic_druid

22nd March 2006, 16:25

Looks like the project has been removed.

Sirber

22nd March 2006, 16:31

CVS still online. Get it while it's avalible :D

Sirber

22nd March 2006, 16:44

Here's a link to the files:

libvp62.tar.bz2 (http://www.mytempdir.com/535123)

hellfred

22nd March 2006, 22:29

Here's a link to the files:

libvp62.tar.bz2 (http://www.mytempdir.com/535123)
This file was reported as illegal material.
Access to the file is temporary blocked.

Gone, too.

Hellfred

Sirber

22nd March 2006, 22:33

Want another link?

Files are still on CVS in any case: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/libvp62/

[edit]

new link (http://tinyurl.com/osft4)

temporance

24th March 2006, 22:37

Well, that was zapped pretty quickly by the powers that be. Here's a theory...

On2 must be pretty scared of their codecs' source escaping into the wild because the source could be used to prove patent infringement. Without the source, patent holders like AT&T and Microsoft can only guess that VP6 might tread on their IP.

Having looked at the source, it's interesting that, for a proprietary, independent codec, VP6 shares so many tools with MPEG-4 pt2 and pt10 (H.264).

I'll stop now, I'm being mischevious...

Edit: Naturally I'm not alleging intentional patent infringement on On2's part - my point is that even the most upstanding public company will find it incredibly difficult to create a video codec without treading on multiple patents. By keeping the algorithm closed, companies can ensure they do not place potentially incriminating evidence (source code) in the hands of the "prosecution" (patent holders).

bond

25th March 2006, 10:51

i guess on2 contacted sourceforge and this hosting company to remove the code. this either means:

1) the source was leaked and therefore on2's copyright was violated
2) on2 doesnt like their format to be publically known (which in fact now is the case no matter if the code gets removed from sf)

now regarding 2) i wonder whether reverse engineering is illegal? or whether offering code that uses someone elses patents is illegal without having the approval from the patent holder (same case as libdts)

Selur

27th March 2006, 15:23

maybe they took the code of the java applet and just ported it,...

Sharktooth

28th March 2006, 03:34

any official statements from on2?

Sirber

28th March 2006, 03:41

new link:

link! (http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?cat=other&file=libvp62.tar.bz2)

next time is torrent :sly:

B.F.

29th March 2006, 02:16

VP6 in ffdshow...
Interesting :D

Sirber

29th March 2006, 02:21

got deleted again...

Should I got for torrent?

celtic_druid

29th March 2006, 03:40

Put it up on your own server. Then we can see if On2 emails you to take it down and why.

dimzon

29th March 2006, 08:40

Put it up on your own server. Then we can see if On2 emails you to take it down and why.
Yes, it's fine solution! Bcz I asked On2 multiple times about legality of this decoder and dosn't got answer at all! But next day after my letter libvp62 project @ sf.net was closed :scared:

celtic_druid

29th March 2006, 09:28

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

If I were On2 and I had gotten the project removed, etc. then I wouldn't discuss it either if I didn't have to.

dimzon

29th March 2006, 09:34

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

29th March 2006, 09:38

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

On2Tech

29th March 2006, 09:40

dimzon

29th March 2006, 09:45

Wilbert

29th March 2006, 09:58

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

29th March 2006, 10:22

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

29th March 2006, 11:11

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

29th March 2006, 12:10

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

29th March 2006, 15:38

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

29th March 2006, 19:46

What about "nothing" ?

temporance

29th March 2006, 22:20

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

29th March 2006, 22:42

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

29th March 2006, 23:50

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

30th March 2006, 00:01

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

30th March 2006, 09:12

bond

30th March 2006, 12:35

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

30th March 2006, 13:12

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

30th March 2006, 13:14

@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

30th March 2006, 14:15

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

30th March 2006, 16:06

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

30th March 2006, 17:01

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

30th March 2006, 17:48

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

dimzon

30th March 2006, 18:07

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

30th March 2006, 18:24

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

30th March 2006, 18:40

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

30th March 2006, 18:54

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

Doom9

31st March 2006, 14:32

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

1st April 2006, 19:32

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

4th April 2006, 20:21

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

5th April 2006, 13:36

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

Sharktooth

5th April 2006, 14:29

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

5th April 2006, 20:02

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

6th April 2006, 02:16

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

11th April 2006, 02:46

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

Anyone surprised?

dimzon

11th April 2006, 08:41

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

11th April 2006, 09:15

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

11th April 2006, 10:29

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

11th April 2006, 11:34

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

11th April 2006, 11:52

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

11th April 2006, 12:04

rjamorim

11th April 2006, 12:09

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

11th April 2006, 12:17

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

11th April 2006, 12:32

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

11th April 2006, 13:01

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

14th April 2006, 01:30

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

15th April 2006, 14:32

@rjamorim

Any legal letters yet?

rjamorim

15th April 2006, 16:32

@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

15th April 2006, 19:49

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

rjamorim

15th April 2006, 20:10

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

18th April 2006, 19:45

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.

Sirber

18th April 2006, 19:58

God bless this mess.I know you love it :D

Lemonzest

18th April 2006, 23:07

"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

18th April 2006, 23:21

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

18th April 2006, 23:30

@rjamorim

Can you put a download counter on the link? :)

MfA

19th April 2006, 00:04

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

19th April 2006, 01:04

@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

19th April 2006, 01:09

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:

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

19th April 2006, 05:28

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

19th April 2006, 08:16

celtic_druid

19th April 2006, 08:56

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

Sirber

19th April 2006, 12:21

How about sweden? thepiratebay love those kind of letters :D

celtic_druid

19th April 2006, 12:43

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ny/code/NY_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

19th April 2006, 12:56

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ny/code/NY_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

19th April 2006, 13:00

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

19th April 2006, 18:19

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

20th April 2006, 00:12

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

20th April 2006, 01:50

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

rjamorim

20th April 2006, 03:51

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

20th April 2006, 04:10

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

20th April 2006, 05:11

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.

dragongodz

20th April 2006, 05:45

If you want to rant to someone
who is ranting ? i would say the majority of posts have been very on topic of how On2 could have done this better and infact should be changing what they are doing to clear this up properly.
trying to find out more facts and making suggestions about what is being done wrong is hardly what i would call ranting.

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;
exactly my point. if On2 had even just ask a few well known indipendant members of the OSS community to look at sections of their code to compare, and then asked them to give their opinions on if it looked atleast suspicious or not, we would have something more solid to believe.

GodofaGap

20th April 2006, 09:15

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.
Yet "the community" does not show any respect back to a company that certainly has made contributions to OSS in the past. For example, rjamorim could have send an email to On2 asking what exactly the problem was with the published source. And if then he wouldn't have had a satisfactory reply he could have put the source up anyway. Instead he just put it up without a thought, apparently being protected by his geographical circumstances.

Very respectful towards On2 all of this. Yes indeed.

celtic_druid

20th April 2006, 09:34

On2 had had ample time to clear this up before he started hosting the source.

Everything they had done uptil that time suggested that the source was actually ok. Otherwise why all the FUD when they could have provided real evidence?

If he had asked then I would think he would have just gotten an answer of no you can't put it up, once again with no real evidence of why not. So why bother asking?

GodofaGap

20th April 2006, 10:09

Oh, I am not suggesting that he would have gotten an useful reply. Only that it wasn't very respectful; the "proper" course of action would have been to ask first, even if it seems futile.

rjamorim

20th April 2006, 10:41

Very respectful towards On2 all of this. Yes indeed.

Why should I respect them? Because they once upon a time open sourced VP3? That doesn't buy sympathy with me.

I posted the sources because I was pissed they were strongarming people hosting them without any modicum of proof - or, as you should say, respect for these people - and with FUD menaces. IMO, companies that do that deserve no respect, no matter what good deeds they did in the past.

Inventive Software

20th April 2006, 12:23

That sorta attitude could get you striked here. Have some respect for the company that you're leeching from.

rjamorim

20th April 2006, 13:01

That sorta attitude could get you striked here. Have some respect for the company that you're leeching from.

Maybe you should be stricken instead for calling me a leech? :-)

dragongodz

20th April 2006, 13:17

calm down guys or you will have a mod threatening to close this thread.

the "proper" course of action would have been to ask first, even if it seems futile.
no the proper course of action would have been On2 to provide some proof ,with which it would have got peoples support, instead of sicking the dogs... er i mean lawyers on to people. people have just reacted to what On2 did first.

Very respectful towards On2 all of this. Yes indeed.
well as i said i have beta tested for them and had no problem with them until this. the course of action they have chosen to take has lost a lot of my respect because it shows they do not respect the OSS community. you reap what you sow.

Inventive Software

21st April 2006, 12:55

OK, by leeching I mean this. Taking the software that has been described in this thread as illegal and in breach of the license that On2 provides, and posting the sources when you know darn well that it's gonna cause controversy. My $0.02. My last word on the legality of this.

I think they open-sourced VP3 to further challenge the superiority of the MPEG codecs and the other proprietary codecs. That and the fact that they provided the code to the Theora project, and saw fit to open-source it for everybody's benefit. (That's my opinion, and in no way constitutes what ACTUALLY happened!) I don't think that they'll do the same thing for VP6 until THEY (ON2) FEEL READY. They're more likely to do it for VP4 or VP5, VP4 being very similar to VP3. They're not gonna be pushed around by somebody in the company that's stealing their code. They probably (though it's unconfirmed) know who the culprit is and have dealt with him accordingly. (I'd have strung him up by the computer wires he used to post the code on the internet. That'll teach him for leeching! ;))

bratao

21st April 2006, 14:52

But i dont get the point yet..
They sell a Encoder ! a decoder sholud give long life to their encoder...

Sirber

21st April 2006, 17:18

they give free the DLL for the decoder...

www.on2.com

rjamorim

21st April 2006, 19:12

Hello.

On2 lawyers just replied to my letter to them, and to my pleasant surprise, they were very respectful, tactful and polite (as far as lawyers can go, of course). They were also helpful explaining their point of view on this situation:

Dear Roberto:

You seem intelligent, thoughtful, and respectful of others as well as the law.

Perhaps you are not aware that On2 is a small technology based primarily video codes company started by free thinkers as yourself. On2 decided that the way it could grow and employ those who became dedicated to its mission was to make its software proprietary. I need not remind you how easily large, well financed companies can steal the software of small companies, especially when offered as open source. I daresay On2 would long ago have fired its loyal employees and closed its doors if such predators had open access to On2's technology.

So On2 has occasionally distributed some software as open source and kept other software proprietary. That is a dynamic decision because as On2 continues to employ its software employees, its technology advances and some prior versions can be made public without jeopardizing On2's core business.

Turning to the instant matter, VP6.2 is not open source. The source code is proprietary, clever, and reflects the skill and judgment of its software engineers. Someone without access to the source code could not have written the code which has been posted. Here in the U.S. as well as around the world and in Brazil, the term “substantially similar” is the code word for copyright infringement. I cannot post On2's material source code which correlates that published because I would be open sourcing proprietary code. This is not sowing fear, uncertainty, or doubt, as you say, but instead trying to keep a trade secret secret.

So how was On2's source code purloined? Well, someone could have gained access and without authorization passed it on - you can easily imagine many other scenarios.

One thing is certain, the published, unauthorized On2 VP6.2 code is just too similar to the authentic. It never has happened that when a copy is so close to the original that the copy was independently created. No one would believe someone claiming to have independently written the same words as in Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea; you would not, nor would I. If we need to prove this in a court, we will, but by then many innocent people will be hurt, and I hope that is not your intent. Any such court proceeding will be confidential, and a judge will review our evidence and be as convinced as we that the posted VP6.2 code is so close to that of On2 that it had to be copied. Copyright protection means that unless the original author willingly and affirmatively gives permission, his work cannot be copied as it is here. The entire work (be it Hemingway’s or On2's) need not be copied for it to be infringed; copying a few paragraphs of Hemingway or a block of code from VP6 is still infringement. Thus, breaking the code into somewhat smaller pieces as done by Noise Chain does not avoid infringement.

Now turning to the reverse engineering issue - you understand “shrink wrap” licenses. Any authorized user of an On2 product agrees in advance not to reverse engineer it. This again is part of On2's methodology to stay in business, improve its code for its users and keep the predators away. It simply follows that if anyone did reverse engineer or decompile that could only have been taken from a purchaser whose agreement not to undertake that activity was required to use it. Now if someone else had an unauthorized copy and reverse engineered that code, then it would be reverse engineering of an unauthorized copy which is stealing property. From our software engineer’s review of the published codes, we believe that actual code was stolen - but if not, and it was reverse engineered, we have the same type of illegal activity which On2 cannot permit.

You have correctly identified that the DMCA has a reverse engineering provision, but it does not afford one a blanket right to reverse engineer. Here is the relevant portion of the DMCA pertaining to reverse engineering (the entire DMCA is available here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c105:6:./temp/~c105pA2262:: )

(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

(17 USC § 1201(f), emphasis added.)

What does this mean? First, the copy must be lawfully obtained. Next, you don't have an unlimited reverse engineering ability, only "to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title," i.e., do not constitute copyright infringement. So basically, one can reverse engineer the code to make it work with other software and even share his work with others, but one may not copy and share the whole entire code. That's copyright infringement. The law (but not On2's shrink wrap license) permits you to reverse engineer VP6.2 and generate patches that will enable it to work on other operating systems, but you are obviously not allowed simply to make the whole code available to anyone who wants it in the hopes that they will develop such patches. Posting it in its entirety on rarewares and then saying that anyone who downloads it is only doing so to make it work with other software is a violation of the DMCA and not protected under the limited reverse engineering exception. That exception only enables you to get code A to work with code B; it is not a free hand to simply release the entire code in the hopes that someone else will fix an interoperability problem.

You have cited examples of others who have reverse engineered. Compaq did what it did decades before the DMCA existed. IBM allowed it to happen and decided not to pursue Compaq, believing the real money was in software, not hardware. On2 isn’t held to IBM’s or anyone else’s business decisions, none of which affects the scope of the DMCA at any rate.

So where are we? While you are in Brazil, your country is no kinder to illegal copyright infringement than is the U.S. Infringing copyrighted material is just not permitted in almost all countries.

Your publishing the code and continuing to do so ensnares others into also committing illegal acts. Some are here in the U.S. and others are elsewhere, but to my knowledge, most software aficionados do not willingly violate the law. They just don’t want to be outlaws. But by your encouraging such behavior, you are ensnaring them and causing them problems.

Now I do not know if you will voluntarily remove the VP6.2 code from your website, but I hope you will immediately. To the extent there is any way to prove our issues without jeopardizing On2's proprietary position, we are willing to do so, but first the code must be removed now.

You understand On2 can go to court here in the U.S. to reach to American infringers who may or may not know they are violating the law. Additionally, On2 can proceed against you in Brazil. All of this is unpleasant and can be expensive and burdensome.

I would hope you understand why On2 maintains some of its software as proprietary, and that you will respect On2's position. We would hope not to need the courts in this effort.

As we have stated in our letters, time is precious. On2 is being damaged every moment the posted VP6.2 On2 code remains available, and On2 is willing to pay our law firm to do what is right. Our experience over the years is that most people respect the right way and do not need to be bothered by lawsuits.

I look forward to your prompt agreement with my request on behalf of the software engineers of On2 as well as its management.

I do not intend to write continuing letters arguing the law with you as On2 would like your prompt cooperation as it has had from other websites which carried unauthorized code.

Very truly yours,
LEVISOHN, BERGER & LANGSAM, LLP

Peter L. Berger

I'm considering complying to their request. I think they deserve it now. What so you guys think?

Sirber

21st April 2006, 19:25

Bah, I wouldn't mind you to remove it.

buzzqw

21st April 2006, 19:36

is a correct and polite answer and deserve your respect.

I will remove it

BHH

gabest

21st April 2006, 20:38

Nice..., but the code cannot compare to Hemingway's writings, rather simple and unoptimized :P. And what about the fact that they offer their decoder for free, how can another one hurt their revenues like this.

Doom9

21st April 2006, 21:52

Since I make my money by creating intellectual property I cannot help but chime in.

The question it comes down to is simple: was code which was not released under a license that permits copying, copied and contained in the decoding lib? If yes, there's a problem (that's what SCO bases their whole FUD campaign on), if not, there's no problem at all - ON2 cannot prevent anybody from creating a third party decoder. If said person were to be given access to the specs or source code without permission, but did not copy anything, it would come down to ON2 having to prove in court that not only did said person have access to such material, but also that such access constitutes an illegal activity - and keeping in mind that copyright law varies from country to country the latter part is hard to prove and even harder to enforce.. you simply move hosting and the problem is solved. If you don't agree with that, have a look at material posted on US servers that's illegal in many European countries (for instance, denying the Holocaust) - and just as the US defends their freedom of press over laws of other countries, other countries not only have the right but the obligation to do the same to the US.

And with that, the DMCA is out of the picture. The software is not hosted in the US, and there's no proof that it was created in the US. I find it quite offensive when US lawyers try to enforce US laws in other countries.. get the hell out of our legal system.

I agree with Mr. Berger under the assumption that code was indeed copied - but the rest of the argumentation is bogus at best. Shrink Wrap licenses have been found invalid in many European countries. So if I were to reverse engineer a copy of an On2 decoder, that would be perfectly legal where I live.

And the whole DMCA angle, that reverse engineering is about circumventing copy protection.. this clearly isn't even an issue here.

So risking to repeat myself, it comes down to "was the code reverse engineered" (in which case, there's no problem), or was it copied, in which case we have copyright infringement (and nothing else.. just goes to show how well the "old" copyright law still serves us.. it transfers just nicely into the digital age).

And having a last look at the DMCA interpretation, So basically, one can reverse engineer the code to make it work with other software and even share his work with others, but one may not copy and share the whole entire code. That's copyright infringement.is worded ambigously. If "whole entire code" refers to the code that is required for interoperability, and does not contain portions of a work protected by copyright, then that code can be shared just fine. But, it the code infringes on copyright (because it was copied without permission), then it must not be shared. But once again, we're not dealing with copy protection so the DMCA angle is void.

I cannot post On2's material source code which correlates that published because I would be open sourcing proprietary code. Reminds me of SCO. Let's recall Sigma and XviD.. the XviD team properly backed up their claims, and in no way would publishing the matching original source code constitute open sourcing proprietary code.. the code would still be protected under copyright law unless the code comes with an open source or other license that allows free use. It may be that On2 does not wish to share their original code, but since the cat's out of the bag, one has to raise the same questions as in the SCO case. Microsoft makes significant portions of their cash cow software available under a "look but don't copy" license.. if Microsoft can, why can't ON2? The code is already out, clean room reverse engineering will be possible and a perfectly legit decoder will come out sooner or later anyway.. showing the code to prove the allegations would be the right thing to do here. So, if I were in this situation, I'd honor the request, but insist that irrefutable proof be provided within a certain period of time. When being accused of aiding in copyright infringement on mere heresay, if you comply (under threat of a lawsuit nontheless) courtesy also goes the other way.

Last but not least:
On2 is being damaged every moment the posted VP6.2 I can't follow that. Does anybody have to pay for a VP6.2 license? Does any company that used to pay for a license now use the code in question and has stopped paying license fees? Because safe for those conditions I can't see how ON2 can be losing money over this. A VP6.2 decoder in ffdshow (as an example) would most certainly not cause any financial harm to anybody.. there's plenty of decoders in there already, for formats where you have to pay license fees for a decoder (MPEG-2, 4, ...). It's not like any organization that is spreading a decoder in sufficient numbers to fall under the licensing requirements for those codecs would be using ffdshow anyway - or do you have any examples to the contrary?

dragongodz

22nd April 2006, 06:26

I cannot post On2's material source code which correlates that published because I would be open sourcing proprietary code.
this assumes that the source must be shown to the whole general public which is false. as i alrady said the proof could be shown to a select amount of independant individuals who could then substantiate the claim. until something is shown to someone independant there is no proof of anything either way.

No one would believe someone claiming to have independently written the same words as in Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea; you would not, nor would I.
i had to laugh at this example because its so far different than this case it beggars belief. hows it different ? people can read and compare the words. now if someone wrote a story and Hemingway came out later and said it contains large parts of 1 of his works which people have not read and are not allowed to what then ? would you still believe Hemingway or would you(or a court) ask that someone be allowed to read those parts to compare ?
sorry but that statement is either (1) a joke,(2) coming from someone who doesnt have a clue about the comparison or (3) someone purposfully trying to make a smokescreen so they dont have to prove anything. since its from a lawyer i will leave that up to yourselves to decide. ;)

EDIT: of course Hemingway is dead so the question becomes a "if it happened while he was alive" or "if he was alive now". if you get what i mean. hey i wasnt the one who used Hemingway to start with.

Nic

22nd April 2006, 10:13

Sirber

22nd April 2006, 16:10

Do we close this thread?

BoNz1

22nd April 2006, 18:33

Ok, so I have a little theory as to where the code came from, since nobody seems to know and On2 seems far to embarrassed to say anything, you might guess that it's pretty funny. And I think it is. And I have a good hunch it isn't just a theory...Since a lot of people who are more in the know than I am think this is where it came from.

You might remember a little while ago that On2 had some Java applets on their website to demonstrate VP5/6. Unfortunately, for On2 they never required anyone to sign any license of any sort. The code did not come from someone hacking the company network or a disgruntled employee. It came from those applets according to what I have heard.

Sirber

22nd April 2006, 18:43

Isn't java kind of easy to decompile?

Liisachan

22nd April 2006, 18:52

Sirber: yes. but if you do that, you can't get the original variable names. So, that's not the case if we believe that lawyer.

soresu

22nd April 2006, 18:54

So, if true this would mean that any reverse engineering of it is not actually bound to silence by the DMCA?

CEC

22nd April 2006, 20:10

Can you imagine what might happen if someone put the code of their encoder on the net???????:eek: :eek: :eek:
They are nearly crying with the fact that their decoder code is out!!!

siddharthagandhi

22nd April 2006, 20:56

What rjamin is doing is probably not legal, and he shouldn't do it, but striking him isn't going to stop it. Everyone already knows the link and as long as this thread is viewable anyone can still acess the code, so that won't stop anything.

MfA

22nd April 2006, 22:30

Googling a bit variable names seem to be actually included in unobfusciated byte code (or at least they were at one point in time).

dimzon

22nd April 2006, 23:11

Sirber: yes. but if you do that, you can't get the original variable names.
Debug information...

shark37

22nd April 2006, 23:15

You might remember a little while ago that On2 had some Java applets on their website to demonstrate VP5/6.
TrueMotion Streaming Java Applet 1.1 (http://web.archive.org/web/20050320020716/http://www.on2.com/applet/)

Unfortunately webarchive page refers to .jar and .avi files located on www.on2.com -- see <applet...> fragment of page source below

<applet archive="truemotion.jar,on2_speex.jar" code="On2.VPXDecoderApplet.class" width="240" height="144">
<param name="InputFileName" value="http://www.on2.com/applet/potter240-300.avi">
<param name="Seconds" value="50,60">
<param name="soundSystem" value="JSND">
<param name="JumpToURL" value="http://www.on2.com/sales.php3?qs1=Java%20Licensing">
<param name="StartImage" value="http://www.on2.com/applet/intro.jpg">
<param name="EndImage" value="http://www.on2.com/applet/end.jpg">
<param name="PostProcessLevel" value="0">
<param name="timeout" value="10000">
<param name="credits" value="http://www.on2.com/applet/credits.txt">
</applet>

But...
with a little help of Google anyone can still take a look at "truemotion.jar" :D
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=EGLC,EGLC:2006-14,EGLC:en&q=truemotion%2ejar

From
"G o o g l e's cache of http://www.martyrtv.co.uk/index_files/ as retrieved on 5 Jul 2005 23:55:54 GMT." (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:OQqdWN-fYpMJ:www.martyrtv.co.uk/index_files/+truemotion.jar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4)
one still can download http://www.martyrtv.co.uk/index_files/truemotion.jar :D

Sirber: yes. but if you do that, you can't get the original variable names.
Interesting that there was debug version of the applet -- "truemotion_debug.jar" unavailable now :)
"G o o g l e's cache of http://manzanaroja.com/on2/test/ as retrieved on 19 Aug 2005 11:09:02 GMT" (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:KbAkg8nE_D4J:manzanaroja.com/on2/test/+truemotion.jar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5)

bratao

22nd April 2006, 23:28

In java decompile you get the original variable names !
This not happen, only if the developer use some type of obfuscator..
But the normal compile , in a decompile you get the original names !

bratao

22nd April 2006, 23:31

Update>
I download truemotion.jar and the file VP6Decoder.class in essence is the source found in cvs..
But this code is obfuscate , you cant get the original variables names..
"Obfuscation by RetroGuard - www.retrologic.com (author: Mark Welsh, markw@retrologic.com)"

but exist a debug version, its possible that this version is not obfuscated !

rjamorim

23rd April 2006, 01:09

What rjamin is doing is probably not legal, and he shouldn't do it, but striking him isn't going to stop it.

Why would I be stricken? Did I break forum rules?

Ok, so I have a little theory as to where the code came from, since nobody seems to know and On2 seems far to embarrassed to say anything, you might guess that it's pretty funny. And I think it is. And I have a good hunch it isn't just a theory...Since a lot of people who are more in the know than I am think this is where it came from.

You might remember a little while ago that On2 had some Java applets on their website to demonstrate VP5/6. Unfortunately, for On2 they never required anyone to sign any license of any sort. The code did not come from someone hacking the company network or a disgruntled employee. It came from those applets according to what I have heard.

Right. I actually just got this e-mail:

Hi, I've been following the discussion about libvp62. I just want to
give you the story how I think this all happend. Short version: this
code is most likely a legit reverse engineering job. Long version: on2
has distributed some java applets with vp5 and vp6 decoding
capabilities. These applets were availible from their homepage without
any shrinkwrap license. One version can be found here:
http://www.martyrtv.co.uk/index_files/truemotion.jar

The nice thing with java is that it is easy to RE, just try it on a java
class with jad. The vp6 applets were obfuscated with Retroguard, the vp5
applets wheren't that obfuscated. On
http://multimedia.cx/eggs/category/reverse-engineering/on2duck/page/1/
can you read abit more regarding the vp5 applets.

I have several versions of the diffrent applets and also some source. I
compared the source of libvp62 and one of the vp5 sources. Although not
a perfect match some functions looked really really similar.

Giving someone fairly experienced with videocodecs and with all this
information, the probability of libvp62 being a valid RE work is quite high.

So we have on2 claiming that the source is from them, I would say it's
from RE work on their binary java applets.
They then claim license breach, well they distributed them by themselfs
without any need to agree on some license. This can
be veryfied by looking at their site from archive.org.

I think this info invalidate their claims of the source beeing stolen.

And then the question about complying with their request. I would like
to see their response to this information, and the best way to get a
proper response is by keeping distributing the source. But I wouldn't
blame you for not wanting the hassle and I can tell you I would stop
distributing the source.

I can back all my claims with source or other information if you doubt
some of my claims.

Sounds very well explained and thought out. I guess that's "reasonable doubt" for you...

Edit: I omitted the e-mail author's name because I don't know if he wants to be identified. He is probably reading this thread anyway, so he can identify himself if he so wishes.

Who knows, maybe he is "ztoon padli" :P

rjamorim

23rd April 2006, 01:17

Reminds me of SCO. Let's recall Sigma and XviD.. the XviD team properly backed up their claims, and in no way would publishing the matching original source code constitute open sourcing proprietary code.. the code would still be protected under copyright law unless the code comes with an open source or other license that allows free use.

That actually made me wonder about the lawyer firm's understanding of open source, source code and software development as a whole. I'm afraid I know more on this subject than mister Berger (or, at least, they expect me to know very little) :rolleyes:

So, if I were in this situation, I'd honor the request, but insist that irrefutable proof be provided within a certain period of time. When being accused of aiding in copyright infringement on mere heresay, if you comply (under threat of a lawsuit nontheless) courtesy also goes the other way.

More on that as I reply to Nic's post...

i had to laugh at this example because its so far different than this case it beggars belief. hows it different ? people can read and compare the words. now if someone wrote a story and Hemingway came out later and said it contains large parts of 1 of his works which people have not read and are not allowed to what then ? would you still believe Hemingway or would you(or a court) ask that someone be allowed to read those parts to compare ?
sorry but that statement is either (1) a joke,(2) coming from someone who doesnt have a clue about the comparison or (3) someone purposfully trying to make a smokescreen so they dont have to prove anything. since its from a lawyer i will leave that up to yourselves to decide. ;)

Pathetic, really. I wouldn't hire a lawyer firm like that to defend me from accusations of jaywalking.

rjamorim

23rd April 2006, 01:22

@rjamorim: I would comply. They have been respectful enough now and to be honest a VP62 decoder source code isn't going to be much use to anyone if On2 will try and shutdown/takedown anything made from it. I have a feeling they're not going to let the issue drop, IMHO it isn't worth your efforts rjamorim.

I agree. It's no use keeping distributing this code (which is pretty useless to non-programmers) if they plan to FUD any potential user - FFMPEG, ffdshow, MPC, GStreamer or the like. I guess anyone able to take this code and create a clean room reverse engineering out of it already got it. So, I'll probably just remove it from RareWares tomorrow, as a major overhaul of the site is planned (a whole section will be moved to ReallyRareWares) and leave some notice, maybe instructions to download it from The Pirate Bay :D

More than 200 people downloaded it. That's a good enough amount of people to make sure this code won't simply vanish.

Liisachan

23rd April 2006, 01:56

@shark37
Nice job :)

I'm not sure, but I'm feeling this way:

If truemotion_debug.jar is (or was in the past) in public, and freely accessible via HTTP (meaning, without even EULA)--then, technically, what was apparently done is a reverse engineering in a broader sense, and is generally legal.

dragongodz

23rd April 2006, 02:07

rjamorim - when you email them that you are removing the download it would be interesting if you pointed out how silly the Hemigway comparison was and see what(if?) response to that aswell.

actually looking around the places where On2 devs have been posting about this i see they seem to have stopped. i am guessing all the calls for proof from lots of places is something they are just not willing to do and can not really argue against. as its been said before, to ask for some kind of proof, even to just select individuals, is not unreasonable. unfortunatly they seem to have decided to now leave it to the lawyers.

vlada

24th April 2006, 02:25

Hi,
I think that I just let you know this: In my country is reverse engineering explicitly legal. Any license agreement not written in Czech language is obsolete. SW patents do not exist here. Your own code is copyrighted and that's enough.

Sirber

24th April 2006, 02:30

Any license agreement not written in Czech language is obsolete.Isn't it kinda racist?

[edit]

Also, if my software is GPLed, and the license is in english, it's not valid in your country? :confused:

[edit 2]

Here you go: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.cs.html :p

rjamorim

24th April 2006, 02:59

Here you go: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.cs.html :p

Well, that GPL has no value. The FSF themselves state that only english language versions have value :)

In vlada's case, in theory, since he can't understand the license (or, even if he understands, it would have no legal value as legal documents must be written in the county's current language), he must refuse to accept it (and therefore not use the software/source code/whatever). YMMV, according to your country's laws, of course.

Actually, that's why software such as Photoshop comes with EULAs in several languages

Aaaaaanyway...

To comply with Herrrrr Berger's polite but pitiful requests, I removed VP6's source code from RareWares.

But wait! You can still obtain VP6 source code from RareWares!
http://www.rarewares.org/files/others/VP6_src_legal.zip

Ohhh, poor pitiful me...

Sirber

24th April 2006, 03:08

Hum.... that seems to be legal now :D

MfA

24th April 2006, 03:12

The license being invalid doesn't really matter much to the GPL, without the GPL you can't redistribute the source code period.

rjamorim

24th April 2006, 03:19

Hum.... that seems to be legal now :D

If they come bitching, I'll follow master Anakata's steps and tell them to go sodomize themselves with retractable batons :)

Liisachan

24th April 2006, 07:13

@rjamorim
I will support you. I do feel a little sorry for On2, but their legal-threat approach based on invalid logic is not acceptable. I would feel much more sympathetic without that.

Strictly speaking, saying no to unlawful demands is staying on the right side of the law. I have an impression that they are basically telling the truth, but technically, accepting their logic right away means that any OSS project could be stalled if someone just said "foo.cpp was ours. It was stolen. You mustn't use it and you must delete it immediately." without even showing any solid proof.

Secondly, dimzon asked in March 2006 "@On2Tech Please, any comments about this topic" in this VP7 thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=806071#post806071). If "Time is of the essence" they should have answered immediately.

Btw, a clause that prohibits reverse-engineering is, even though being explicitly written in EULA, generally considered as invalid in Japan too; especially prohibiting reverse-engineering that is done for compatibility could be considered as a violation of the antitrust laws. IANAL but if that C++ code is obtained from that .jar--tho this part is disputable--, it could be therefore legal. As another note, they didn't include EULA in .jar when they could have.

Even so, they could ask you to help them. My understanding is that RareWares voluntarily complied with their requests out of kindness, even though technically RareWares did not have any legal duties to do so.

OT--btw, about Musepack.... isnt it a bit too early to move it to RRW???? Besides, you are not hosintg the latest version 1.15v. (1.15u is not the last one!)

vlada

24th April 2006, 10:13

Isn't it kinda racist?

[edit]

Also, if my software is GPLed, and the license is in english, it's not valid in your country? :confused:

[edit 2]

Here you go: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.cs.html :p

Well if you want somebody in a non-english speaking country to obey your license, it should be in her/his native language. You can't expect, that everybody will understand English. Also if you want to sell any product in Czech Republic, it must have a manual written in Czech. And I think this is correct, because only a few people can speak english in my country. Much more people can speak Russian and German.

Well this is good for "hardware" products. With SW products, it is quite hard (or rather say impossible) to keep up with this legislative. But so far we have no special legislative for SW manuals/licenses.

It would be quite interesting to see what would happen if somebody would use a GPLed SW in conflict with it's licence. In this case I think if you were the author of the code, you have your copyright for it. If somebody wants to use it, he can't do so unless you let him to. So if he would claim he doesen't understand the license he had no right to use your code. But what if he just missunderstood the license? It is quite complicated, isn't it?

I'm not a lawyer, but my brother and my sister are lawyers, so I'll ask them for their opinion.

Latexxx

24th April 2006, 13:37

Well if you want somebody in a non-english speaking country to obey your license, it should be in her/his native language. You can't expect, that everybody will understand English.

Actually, if the gpl would be be void because of language issues, you would have no right to do anything with the program or sources because they are protected by the copyright which doesn't give you any rights to distribute or make copies of the program.

Even running a program which is copyrighted but to which you have no license could be illegal.

vlada

24th April 2006, 21:34

Actually, if the gpl would be be void because of language issues, you would have no right to do anything with the program or sources because they are protected by the copyright which doesn't give you any rights to distribute or make copies of the program.

Even running a program which is copyrighted but to which you have no license could be illegal.

Yes, I basically agree with this. I think I said it simliar later in my topic. Or at least I wanted to - can you see the possiblity of missunderstanding something because of language?

But it is much more difficult to apply this to a binary. Because I don't think a binary file can be copyrighted.

Sirber

24th April 2006, 21:43

If you go in properties, there is a copyright notice.

vlada

24th April 2006, 21:58

Sirber> Yes, but usually only for name and/or logos.

Sirber

24th April 2006, 22:04

It should cover the whole file.

Latexxx

25th April 2006, 09:04

But it is much more difficult to apply this to a binary. Because I don't think a binary file can be copyrighted.

A binary file of a program is copyrighted because it is a work. This is easy: if it does something (i.e. outputs text or calculates 1+1), it isn't trivial and is copyrighted. And you don't need a copyright notice because under Berne Convention copyright is granted without any notice.

If you have a binary file which is full of random shick shit (or random ones and zeros, if you prefer), that wouldn't be copyrighted.

GodofaGap

25th April 2006, 09:09

Sirber> Yes, but usually only for name and/or logos.
Names cannot be copyrigthed. They fall under the term "trademark".

Binaries certainly fall under copyright.

Liisachan

25th April 2006, 11:15

A binary file of a program is copyrighted because it is a work. Not always. Copyright is not natural nor universal, but artificially defined by local laws. So its concept varies from place to place, from time to time. It's not surprising that binary is not copyrighted in some contries. There are even non WIPO-contires where there is no copyright at all.

Btw, I'd like to add that Rarewares.org is not just 'reckless'--they did delete dvdaripper & ppcmripper when asked to do so, in 2005.

rjamorim

25th April 2006, 12:21

@rjamorim
I will support you.

Thank-you very much :-)

I have an impression that they are basically telling the truth, but technically, accepting their logic right away means that any OSS project could be stalled if someone just said "foo.cpp was ours. It was stolen. You mustn't use it and you must delete it immediately." without even showing any solid proof.

Yes, that was something that got me wondering. These guys seem to believe FUD is the easiest solution to their issue.

Secondly, dimzon asked in March 2006 "@On2Tech Please, any comments about this topic" in this VP7 thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=806071#post806071). If "Time is of the essence" they should have answered immediately.

Hehe, they only really hurry with it when it matters...

Btw, a clause that prohibits reverse-engineering is, even though being explicitly written in EULA, generally considered as invalid in Japan too; especially prohibiting reverse-engineering that is done for compatibility could be considered as a violation of the antitrust laws. IANAL but if that C++ code is obtained from that .jar--tho this part is disputable--, it could be therefore legal. As another note, they didn't include EULA in .jar when they could have.

Indeed.

And that's another thing that is making me wonder. I think that I was actually more on the legal side with the libVP6 sources at RareWares than with the jar. The jar is obviously copyrighted, and I have no written permission to redistribute it. But if the sources are really reverse engineered from the Jar (and it doesn't matter to me how the Jar was obtained by "Ztoon Padli") and the Jar has no EULA clearly stating it can't be used for reverse engineering purposes, that C++ code is obviously legal from any point of view.

So, I plan to put the libVP6 back there - and without NChain this time, as that woulnt't really help me or anyone else in court. What do you guys think?

Even so, they could ask you to help them. My understanding is that RareWares voluntarily complied with their requests out of kindness, even though technically RareWares did not have any legal duties to do so.

True, but I'm still considering that. They claim On2 is losing money daily while libVP6 is being redistributed, but that's hard to swallow. I prefer to believe is some conspiracy theory that was posted in this same thread earlier, that On2 doesn't want other companies poking around their sources and finding patented routines.

OT--btw, about Musepack.... isnt it a bit too early to move it to RRW????

I don't think so. According to the logs at RareWares, Musepack downloads have been in decline for months. And latest polls at HA (that is one of the few places on the web that still cares about Musepack) show that even old time fanatics are giving up on it.

I'll take this opportunity to add icons to the "lossless" and " others" sections, giving a better look to the site as well.

Besides, you are not hosintg the latest version 1.15v. (1.15u is not the last one!)

And what is version 1.15v? It's a faster compile! AFAIK, they didn't change one line of code comparing to 1.15u, they just used another compiler version with different optimizations. I find that to be a sham to fool people into believing development is active. It would be like feeding Vorbis 1.1 through ICL, get a slightly faster build and claim it to be Vorbis 1.2!

rjamorim

25th April 2006, 12:23

Btw, I'd like to add that Rarewares.org is not just 'reckless'--they did delete dvdaripper & ppcmripper when asked to do so, in 2005.

Indeed, in that case, the lawyers actually had a point: I was distributing copyright protection circumvention tools. That is illegal not only under the DMCA, but under Brazilian law as well.

On2's case, OTOH, has been nothing but FUD so far.

vlada

25th April 2006, 12:42

Indeed, in that case, the lawyers actually had a point: I was distributing copyright protection circumvention tools. That is illegal not only under the DMCA, but under Brazilian law as well.

It's legal here. But I don't know for how long it will be. Btw. so even DVD Decrypter is illegal in Brazil?

rjamorim

25th April 2006, 13:13

Btw. so even DVD Decrypter is illegal in Brazil?

Apparently, yes. I didn't research sufficiently into the matter...

Liisachan

25th April 2006, 13:15

And that's another thing that is making me wonder. I think that I was actually more on the legal side with the libVP6 sources at RareWares than with the jar. The jar is obviously copyrighted, and I have no written permission to redistribute it.

That's what I thought too.

But if the sources are really reverse engineered from the Jar (and it doesn't matter to me how the Jar was obtained by "Ztoon Padli") and the Jar has no EULA clearly stating it can't be used for reverse engineering purposes, that C++ code is obviously legal from any point of view. Even if the JAR had such EULA, it would be probably invalid here, but anyway the fact is, the JAR doesn't have such EULA. So you are right. As another note, the fact that they prohibited RE in their EULA also suggests that RE is legal by default. If RE was illegal by default, they wouldn't need to prohibit it in EULA, because it would be already prohibited by laws. They made such EULA because they believe they need to, meaning they believe RE is not illegal unless otherwise contracted. That's what I believe too.

Now, Gabest released a FLVSplitter that is working better than On2's official decoder.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=819371#post819371
I had some problems with ON2's VP6 deocder, but now it works just fine. Many thanks to Gabes, celtic_druid and screw.

I'd say it is possible that Gabest's code is significantly different than On2's one, because it's working better. If it was just "stolen" and copy-and-pasted, it should have the same bug than On2's decoder, but in reality, it isn't.

Anyway, now that MPC, one of the most popular players for Windows, is supporting VP62, I suppose that format is getting more and more popular, and indirectly making more money for On2.

rjamorim

26th April 2006, 01:41

Yet another mail from them: (they are threatening me!)

April 25, 2006
Dear Roberto:
I was quite pleased with your response to my letter. As you will see, there are still further
issues to be worked through, but I do want you to know that I have been the intellectual property
lawyer for On2, formerly Duck, since its inception in 1992-3. At that time, video codecs were not
as prevalent, and On2 was a pioneer in this industry.
I think you would also be pleased to know that we have had no litigation concerning intellectual
property rights of Duck or On2 the many years I have been in this position. As you know, lawyers
are not necessarily the most highly regarded people within the software industry. On the other
hand, some of us are more able to find more intelligent ways to resolve disputes than running to
court or asserting rights that our clients do not have. We have that approach with anyone with whom
we have had any kind of problem involving intellectual property rights, and we have been usually
successful in avoiding my law firm having to conduct litigation.
Turning now to your new approach - I still think you will see that what you are doing is not
fair, reasonable, or acceptable to On2. If you have been following On2 these many years, you will
know that On2 publicly released its VP3 source code and announced it as available for use and
copying. Outside of that release, On2 has consistently employed the license terminology frequently
found within this industry when posting code whether Java obfuscated code or the like.
The code to which you refer posted February 5, 2005 inadvertently omitted that license notice.
As you know, substantially for all time before and time subsequent to that date, such license
language has consistently and appropriately been placed on code released by On2. The inadvertent
omission of that notice on that release would not serve as permission for unauthorized use of the On2
code. Certainly, you have been put on notice, as have others on Doom9, that On2 asserts the
existence of the license. To be most fair, I do not think either you or others on the site are the
type who would jump on an inadvertent omission by some software engineer at On2 as a vehicle by which
to attack overall On2 policy. Even further, I do not think you want predators of small companies
like On2 to have improper advantage.
Independent of the license, the decompiled code bears substantial similarity to the On2 code.
To that extent, On2's copyright rights against unauthorized copying and distribution also are in
effect. So, even if someone could try to argue that the inadvertent omission of the license that
one time provided some type of waiver, certainly that waiver does not eliminate copyright protection
(separate from trade secret protection). On2 has never dedicated the source code as Open source.
On2 respects those members in the software community who privately work with its code, and in
the instant case, some members of this community have had unauthorized access to the code of which
we complain. We would like that activity to stop immediately. I would certainly appreciate your
removing the posting leading others to decompile the complained of code. To the extent such
unauthorized material is out there, On2 does not agree to nor does it authorize further use of this
improperly obtained code.
In the real world, the private use by some of this code will take place. On2 does not have the
resources nor interest in stamping out every instance of every improper use of its software. On
the other hand, please be certain to know that to the extent any of this use jeopardizes On2's
commercial interests and its desire to remain and succeed in business, On2 will, reluctantly, take
legal action if it is necessary.
So what do we make of all this writing - I guess the simplest conclusion would be that the
sooner your most recent posting is removed the better, not just because On2 has legal rights which are
enforceable in Court, but because we believe from your communications that you do respect On2's
position and do not seek to damage the company.
We hope this is acceptable, and that On2 can stop paying for our time in trying to set right
what should be set right.
Thank you for your prompt cooperation.
Very truly yours,
LEVISOHN, BERGER & LANGSAM, LLP

Peter L. Berger

rjamorim

26th April 2006, 01:43

And my bastard reply:

Greetings.

--- Barry Negrin <b.negrin@LLBL.com> escreveu:
> Turning now to your new approach - I still think you will see that what you are doing is
> not fair, reasonable, or acceptable to On2. If you have been following On2 these many
> years, you will know that On2 publicly released its VP3 source code and announced it as
> available for use and copying. Outside of that release, On2 has consistently employed the
> license terminology frequently found within this industry when posting code whether Java
> obfuscated code or the like.

I completely agree, that approach is unappropriate. That's why I returned to my old
method of distributing only the sources, only this time I gave up on nchain as it, as
we can all agree, was a lame method. Technical hair-splitting wouldn't hold in courts.

Anyway, my rationale is this:

- There is now a possible - and probable - legal source for the code that doesn't
involve theft or breaking of NDAs, that is, the very reverse engineering that I was
walking people through. Decompiling code is not a nice thing, but it's still legal
as, as you must be aware, one could freely obtain that Java code from On2's home
page without first agreeing to any EULA or license. From there, decompilation is
a snap. (it's worth mentioning that C++ code can't be claimed to be copyrighted
by On2 if it was really decompiled, since the reverse-engineer took the care of
completely porting it to another programing language, and therefore he owns the
© to that code)

- I don't buy the argument that "On2 is being damaged every moment the posted VP6.2..."
I highly doubt that companies licencing your decoder (Adobe/Macromedia, AOL/Nullsoft,
eBay/Skype, AutoDesk, etc.) are suddenly stopping paying licensing fees because they
found out about libVP6 and are migrating to it. If any, this library will enormously
help your format raise in popularity, as it will be easily playable on all players
of all platforms, and won't force people to stick to Flash player.

- I understand you guys would like to keep your algorithms closed (for whatever
unfathomable reason), but I don't buy the argument "That code belongs to us. I swear.
Take it down". Otherwise, it would be all to easy for companies to stomp on every
open source project out there - just send a nasty C&D claiming "foo.c belongs to us!
it is stolen code! take it down NOW!!!!"

Therefore, I will not discuss this matter any further until you provided me with
proofs that code indeed belongs to you and indeed was stolen from On2. RareWares
has always been proud of not falling for empty threats, and it's not the latest
FUD that will make us change our behaviour.

Regards;

Roberto Amorim.

PS: Stop already with the "big predators against us small companies" thing. Outgrow that
inferiority complex. And while at it, stop clinging to the old VP3->Theora thing to
fish for sympathy among techies.

Sharktooth

26th April 2006, 03:01

IMHO this is going a bit too far...

dragongodz

26th April 2006, 03:04

hmm an interesting email he sent.

To be most fair, I do not think either you or others on the site are the type who would jump on an inadvertent omission by some software engineer at On2 as a vehicle by which
to attack overall On2 policy.
hmm doesnt seem to get that its these threats of litigation without any proof that is what people are attacking.

Independent of the license, the decompiled code bears substantial similarity to the On2 code.
To that extent, On2's copyright rights against unauthorized copying and distribution also are in effect.
do i read that right ? is he trying to say that even if you reverse engineer ,or decompiler in this case, the java code that since its similar enough to their normal code then it is covered by the normal codes copyright by default ?

I guess the simplest conclusion would be that the
sooner your most recent posting is removed the better
hmm so the simplest conclusion wouldnt have been for On2 to show atleast some kind of proof when this all started ? hmm right. :sly:

And while at it, stop clinging to the old VP3->Theora thing to fish for sympathy among techies.
HAHAHA well said. that chestnut has got so old its moldy. :D

rjamorim

26th April 2006, 03:11

IMHO this is going a bit too far...

Please elaborate. I want to hear everyone's opinion.

Liisachan

26th April 2006, 04:06

@rjamorim
Be careful, this lawyer is serious this time.
He intentionally said confusing things. He could have just said "You have no right to redistribute that copyrighted jar" which the court would soon agree. That was indeed illegal. Simple copyright infringement.

But he made a long discussion about EULA ("There was no EULA in the Jar, still our EULA is applied to it") which the court would not likely to agree, and I bet he knows that. Which means, he is hiding the true strategy he would use in the court, as many people would do before the court fight.

You have a point when you say "Show me a proof." But they could say too, "Show us a proof that the code was really obtained by RE" and you can't. The possibility is 50-50. Decompiled .class looks very similar to vp62.cpp. If vp62.cpp is actually made that way, it's legal. On the other hand it is also possible that both are just based on the same On2's file, not directly related, and the .cpp was accidentally leaked or intentionally stolen. If so, we rather have to feel sorry for them, even though there is a comparative fault. (It was their fault to let their secret out. They should have more secure code management, if it's that valuable. They might want to sue the person who actually broke their security and stole the files.)

And I agree with: "I do not think you want predators of small companies like On2 to have improper advantage."
If there was LGPL lib around there, Adobe etc will stop paying the license fees in the end, for the decoder part. Their concerns are reasonable. Big companies can be shameless anyway. As for VP3, well, celtic_druid said it's like "Op shop" (Australian English for "charity shop".) Haha. Maybe. They gave it to xiph because it no longer made money. Still... we should give them some credit, since they did that by their free will when they were free not to open-source VP3.

This mess aside, I still would like to keep supprting any person/organization that is trying to make non-MPEG non-MS codecs (SNOW, Dirac; RV10, VP7; Theora...). I hope you/they can reach a middle ground with them/you, instead of time/energy-wasting legal action, so that they can use their resources for developing/improving new codecs.

I mean, don't let this lawyer leech money from On2. Just like you, I'm sure On2's devs don't want lawsuit either. The only person who could make money out of this right away is him.

dragongodz

26th April 2006, 04:56

You have a point when you say "Show me a proof." But they could say too, "Show us a proof that the code was really obtained by RE" and you can't.
sorry but that is incorrect. it is On2 that is making the assertion that it is possibly stolen code so it is actually up to them to provide proof period. the rebuttal that it could be from reverse engineering or other by people other than the original author of the code is a suposition and just a possability put out to give a different possible origin. the burden of proof still resides with On2 to prove their claim first.

They gave it to xiph because it no longer made money. Still... we should give them some credit, since they did that by their free will when they were free not to open-source VP3.
they have been spending that credit big time the moment they started calling lawyers on to people instead of doing the right thing. to keep repeatedly bemoaning this 1 thing they did as if that makes them some kind of saint to OSS and should therefore not be required to provide any evidence is rubbish. releasing VP3 source code did nothing for OSS because not only had it stopped making money it was easily surpassed in quality.

This mess aside, I still would like to keep supprting any person/organization that is trying to make non-MPEG non-MS codecs (SNOW, Dirac; RV10, VP7; Theora...).
i agree. thats why people on this forum have beta tested for companies such as On2 and Ateme etc. however this requires both sides to have some respect for each other. sicking lawyers on people who have simply asked for some proof to back up their claims is not respect.

vlada

26th April 2006, 09:15

If there was LGPL lib around there, Adobe etc will stop paying the license fees in the end, for the decoder part.

You think that you can use MPEG-4 decoders like libav or XviD in commercial products without paying licence fees to MPEG LA? I don't think so. And it is the same case of VP6. An opensource decoder doesen't allow anybody not to pay licence fees to a format owner.

So now when there is an LGPL VP6 decoder, it doesen't make any changes to companies like Adobe/Macromedia.

Liisachan

26th April 2006, 09:19

But there are many shameless companies too, like Sony (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/15/1250229).

rjamorim

26th April 2006, 12:29

the burden of proof still resides with On2 to prove their claim first.

Exactly. And both me and you guys have been asking for proof from the start. In this situation here, what haves more weight, the LGPL slapped at the top of the source files or the word from some lawyer? Which one am I supposed to believe by default?

I don't believe the courts would consider me guilty for preferring to believe in what is written than in what is said.

I hope you/they can reach a middle ground with them/you, instead of time/energy-wasting legal action

I want that too! It would only take On2 themselves contacting me and explaining the situation, and stopping relying on legal firms whose tactic is basically FUD.

Sharktooth

26th April 2006, 14:33

Please elaborate. I want to hear everyone's opinion.
i mean i dont think on2 deserves that from this community.
they kindly asked to remove the sources. you may argue they havent the rigths to say so but they spent a lot of time and research in their codecs and maybe they're loosing money due to the availability of their source (they have customers that are paying for that decoder). on2 is a small company and loosing customers or money may condemn them to a non bright future...
however since im a supporter of the open source, i wish on2 releases the official decoder source under gpl or similar license so everyone will be happy (on2 included).

CEC

26th April 2006, 16:45

Come on people, who are you kidding???????:sly:

This code is on2 property!!

Can someone please say (with the hand on the heart) that it isn't??

rjamorim

26th April 2006, 19:32

Come on people, who are you kidding???????:sly:

This code is on2 property!!

Can someone please say (with the hand on the heart) that it isn't??

I don't know what's the point of the "hand on the heart" thing, but up to some days ago, I was 50/50% in doubt whether it was code leaked from On2 or a real reverse engineering effort. Since the Java decompiling possibility came into light, I'm much more inclined to believe this code indeed doesn't belong to On2.

CEC

26th April 2006, 20:49

I don't know what's the point of the "hand on the heart" thing, but up to some days ago, I was 50/50% in doubt whether it was code leaked from On2 or a real reverse engineering effort. Since the Java decompiling possibility came into light, I'm much more inclined to believe this code indeed doesn't belong to On2.

But, didn't on2 made this JAVA??? :confused:

If on2 made that JAVA then it must belong to them! Right??

rjamorim

26th April 2006, 22:55

But, didn't on2 made this JAVA??? :confused:

If on2 made that JAVA then it must belong to them! Right??

Not if the Java code was used as a source of inspiration to whoever created the library.

Remember, the sources I'm hosting at RareWares are C++, not Java. So, if the applet is indeed the origin of this whole controversy, the library creator at least took the initiative of rewriting the source in C++ - and therefore the copyright would now belong to him.

Liisachan

26th April 2006, 23:02

CEC: Like you said, we all believe that the code was originally written by On2 either way. And I'm feeling sorry for On2 too, but if Zeitoun Padli created libvp62 by decompiling that .jar, it could be leagal (in many countries incl. the US), and if so, libvp62 does not belong to On2.

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

In other words, simply put, On2 owns that binary ("machine") and sorce code ("step by step recipe: how to make the machine"), but they do not own the algorithm ("idea") behind it (in some freakin' countries where software patents are legal, this gets yet another condition: "unless it is patented").

It is quite possible that Zeitoun Padli actually did decompile that jar. If so, libvp62 is legal. We have a written permission to use libvp62 under LGPL anyway, so, unless otherwise proven, it is assumed to be LGPL'ed. On2's lawyer keeps saying "No, it's On2's. No it's On2's." but that doesn't change anything. What if, for instance, I said "CEC, what you just posted is my property. You are infringing my copyright. Delete your post right away, or I have to, reluctantly, sue you"...? You would be like "Huh?!" no? You would think for a while and then say "Show me a proof." That's normal. If I could let you delete your post by just saying "It's mine, not yours." that would be terrible. In that sense that lawyer is doing a really poor job, but it can't be helped, because On2's devs probebly don't believe him enough to show him the source code. And that lawyer doesn't know how to use diff anyway.

Someone would have to give him a nice gui like WinMerge and explain how to use it. It's just a waste of time to involve non-geek lawyers here. On2Tech could just PM rjamorim, and everything will be settled and that'd cost 0$ and just a few minutes.

The disturbing fact is, now Zeitoun Padli can say "I decompiled that jar to make libvp62" even tho actually he or she didn't. It is still possible too that the code was simply leaked or stolen. The situation being like above, probably On2 couldn't prove what they first insisted ("the code was solen") even if they did their best. Maybe they don't know the fact themselves either. Maybe the code was not stolen after all, but just was RE'ed.

So my point is, it is only natural for rjamorim to say "Show me a proof" but in this case because of the existence of that jar, rjamorim is actually asking what is technically impossible. Some kind of compromise is needed.

CEC

26th April 2006, 23:44

O.K. I see the point now!!

But it is sad you know! :(

CEC

26th April 2006, 23:50

Check this out:

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=7052110&forum_id=9050

Liisachan

27th April 2006, 01:23

No, I was wrong. On2 may prove the fact very easily. If a few long comments match, we can only conclude that cpp src was just copy-and-pasted. The probability that such a thing accidentally happens is almost 0. Comments can't be obtained by decompiling the .class either. And like I said before, variable names could be a solid evidence too. So, On2 doesn't have to even show the src. They could just quote some of unimportant comments.

CEC: thanks for posting an intersting link :)

Sirber

27th April 2006, 01:46

Wouldn't VP6 decoder have some assembly? C++ alone is not that fast.

Sirber

27th April 2006, 01:47

@rjamorim

http://multimedia.cx/eggs/index.php?p=12

videomixer9

27th April 2006, 09:55

Just boycott On2 and their stupid codecs and the problem is solved, noone will need an decoder for this anymore. And the crappy flash movies aren't worth it anyways. Low quality junk that's encoded with a junk codecs that can disappear from the market imo. Noone needs closed architecture codecs that cannot be decoded with whatever library you want.

Too bad most people are not caring about stuff like this, otherwise the problem would've solved itself by noone even licensing any On2 Codecs.

Even the funny Winamp TV stations that use VP62 now look much better with streamed h264.

Boycott On2 now and have a more happy future without all thesestupid problems. If On2 doesn't want a free decoder based on whatever they sho their arrogance towards the end user and don't deserve any attention. Luckily the scene pretty much ignores these stupid useless codecs.

Also boycotting any of the licensors for this crap codec just like licensors of real codecs would be a nice idea too, whyever e.g. Macromedia licensed that crap, Flashvideo is already famous for it's crappy quality everywhere, most people seems to laugh their asses off by the crap quality of those videos.

celtic_druid

27th April 2006, 11:16

VP62 is better than Sorenson Spark and that was better than a series of jpg's (or maybe not?). I don't really see it is usefull as a straight video stream, but as part of a multimedia package where you can incorperate bitmaps, vectors, text and video.

vlada

27th April 2006, 11:37

i mean i dont think on2 deserves that from this community.
they kindly asked to remove the sources. you may argue they havent the rigths to say so but they spent a lot of time and research in their codecs and maybe they're loosing money due to the availability of their source (they have customers that are paying for that decoder).

As I already wrote before, the fact, that you have an opensource decoder, doesen't allow you to use the fromat freely. So this is a false argument.

dragongodz

27th April 2006, 11:48

i also fail to see how having a lawyer email someone is in any way "kind". especially when the email has "you know we can sue you if you dont comply" type remarks in it.

rjamorim

27th April 2006, 12:04

rjamorim

27th April 2006, 12:08

i also fail to see how having a lawyer email someone is in any way "kind". especially when the email has "you know we can sue you if you dont comply" type remarks in it.

These guys expect whoever receives these e-mails to be scared shitless of C&D letters and promptly comply. From an efficiency point of view, it's great, since most people have very little clue about law and their rights. But from a PR point of view, it's a disaster...

Doom9

27th April 2006, 13:00

they have customers that are paying for that decoderAnd those will have to continue paying license fees - just like a commercial entity can't take the XviD decoder and stop paying MPEG-4 licensing fees. With MPEG-4 we actually have the 50k excemption but that's not applicable for On2.. so anybody using a VP62 decoder in a commercial environment is likely to be eligible for license fees. Hence, they lose nothing.

Liisachan

27th April 2006, 13:28

@Doom9
Ok, then... is this thing patented? That's the question.
If no, one can just decompile that .jar that is lawfully accessible, to ask someone in "Cleanroom" to re-make VP62dec.cpp, which is 100% leagal AND ethical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanroom_%28Software_engineering%29

rjamorim

27th April 2006, 13:34

@Doom9
Ok, then... is this thing patented? That's the question.
If no, one can just decompile that .jar that is lawfully accessible, to ask someone in "Cleanroom" to re-make VP62dec.cpp, which is 100% leagal AND ethical.

Yes, but even if it wasn't patented, On2 could force people already licensing the decoder to keep licensing it even with open source alternatives.

All the companies I mentioned in my e-mail (Adobe, Autodesk, AOL) license not only the decoder, but also the encoder. So, they could say "You want our encoder? Then you have to license the decoder too. We don't license the encoder alone".

foxyshadis

27th April 2006, 14:08

On2 might have to drag them through a long court case first though - see the Burst.com court cases. Of course for the encoder licensees it's different, until an encoder pops up anyway.

On2Tech

27th April 2006, 17:30

This is how I see the situation. First let me apologize in advance for the length of this note but I have a lot that I want to say.

The views expressed by LATEXXX, GodofaGap are pretty much in line with my understanding of copyright law. Specifically, that binaries ARE protected by copyright law in the same way that source code or the text of a novel are protected.

It is also my understanding, that just as translation of a novel from say English to French or indeed English to French and then back to English, does not circumvent the original author’s copyright, so compilation of source code and de-compilation, (both forms of translation) do not circumvent copyright. If this were not true then all copyright protection would be meaningless.

The argument that taking a stolen copy of the code and doing a few global search and replaces on variable names is illegal but it is somehow fine to do a trivial de-compilation, or for that matter take code written in one high level language and convert it to another, and then distribute it as “your own work”, seems to me ridiculous and both morally and intellectually reprehensible.

There follow some more common sense examples that I feel illustrate the fact that copyright does not so easily just ”disappear”.

Consider a company that took some open source software and in a jurisdiction not covered by the GPL, compiled it and then decompiled it. If that company took the decompiled code, changed the license, claimed copyright for themselves and distributed it, saying that they were no longer in any way encumbered by the original license or copyright, then the open source community would quite rightly be outraged.

Yet another pertinent example. If you were to take a camera into a movie theatre and film it this does not circumvent the studio’s copyright. Similarly if you were to take a movie encoded in MPEG-2, decode it and then recode into another format such as VP7 or H.264, this would not circumvent the original copyright. You would not then be able to claim that the re-encoded movie was your “own original work” and that you were entitled to redistribute it in any way you see fit without let or hindrance! Changing the format or way in which something is encoded, or translating something, simply DOES NOT make the original copyright disappear. As long as it can be shown to be clearly derivative or substantially similar, the original copyright will remain in force.

I think that there is also a fallacy in the arguments that are being presented on the board re. the significance of the lack of an EULA in the JAVA code. An act of translation itself (including compilation, de-compilation or conversion from one high level language to another), may not necessarily be an offense, depending on the precise details of any license and the jurisdiction, but this does not in ANY WAY imply a right to distribute the results. It is true that a translated work may itself be copyrighted, but that does not undermine a case for infringement of the original copyright and people on Doom9 have already commented on striking similarities between the decompiled Java and the LIBVP62 C++ code!

Putting the legal issues aside for a moment, (as disagreements regarding the interpretation of the law cannot unfortunately be resolved without actually taking this to court), I and others here at On2 put in a lot of work on VP6 and when I look at the LIBVP62 code it is absolutely clear to me that it is NOT an “original work”. Somebody has just taken our code (by one means or another) dressed it up a bit, and is now claiming it as their own work! Some on the Doom9 board seem to think that defending and promoting this behaviour is somehow taking the moral high ground! I don’t mind saying that this annoys me big time.

A further interesting point was raised by VLADA regarding and LATEXXX regarding the situation for binaries where there is no EULA. As I see it, EULA’s cut both ways. They may impose specific limitations or constraints but they also grant rights that would not exist by default (e.g. because of copyright legislation). Without an EULA, any distribution of, copying of (including creation of any derivative work) and potentially even USE of a binary, may constitute an infringement of copyright.

I think that Rjamorim is right therefore, when he observes that his recent tactic of distributing the VP6 .JAR file together with tools and instructions on how to decompile it, was extremely unwise. There is absolutely no dispute regarding the authorship of the JAR file and it is clearly not the case that Rarewares has been granted permission by On2 to distribute it. Therefore he has unequivocally infringed our copyright.

Rjamorim previously asked if he was breaking any forum rules. Just as we are not an inherently litigious company and have always been reluctant to resort to the courts (expensive and damaging to everyone concerned), I have no desire to see anyone “struck” or to stifle legitimate debate. However, I would refer you forum rule 6 which in my opinion is pretty unambiguous.

“6) No warez, cracks, serials or illegally obtained copyrighted content! Links to content of a questionable nature, asking for, offering, or asking for help/helping to process such content in any way or form is not tolerated.”

Even if he refuses to accept our assertions that the LIBVP62 code is not legal (or even that it is “QUESTIONABLE”), there can be no doubt that the unauthorized redistribution of one of our binaries did infringe. Therefore, yes, he has in my view broken Doom9 forum rules.

As Rjamorim has shown, simply decompiling other peoples binaries be they JAR files or other compiled binaries is not an inherently clever thing that should be applauded as an academic achievement by the open source community. There are tools out there that do this at the click of a button. Quite frankly a trained monkey could do it. Creating those tools might be pretty clever as is the creation of good compilers, but using them is not. Neither is converting from JAVA to C++ particularly difficult or clever, because the languages are very similar in syntax and structure.

I accept that the JAVA binary is out there and cannot be put back into the bag so to speak (as are our other binaries) but I believe that both it and any work that can clearly be shown to be derivative, are still protected by copyright law, and I personally do not think it is unreasonable of On2 to assert its rights if it feels there is a threat to its commercial interests. I just cannot understand, why Rjamorim is continuing in this highly confrontational vein. Unless of course he has some ulterior motive, and is determined to back us into a corner where we have no choice but to take legal action.

“If they come bitching, I'll follow master Anakata's steps and tell them to go sodomize themselves with retractable batons ”

Is this kind of thing really helpful or necessary? Doesn’t the forum also have rules against bad mouthing people? Perhaps he thinks it is legitimate because it is directed at our lawyers rather than at another member of the forum, but I think that is a pretty lame excuse given the courteous if firm tone of their letters.

Many on the forum, have asked why we have not supplied proof. We have, what I believe is a compelling case that copyright has been infringed and also that licensing terms may well have been breached. In addition we have patents pending which when granted will almost certainly be infringed. Surely it is obvious that the place for presenting proof per sé is a courtroom (if it comes to that), and that any public disclosure of our evidence in advance might act to forewarn and forearm any adversary and hence prejudice our position.

In any case, even if we convinced Rjamorim, what is to stop someone else putting the stuff up and demanding proof, then another and another?

In regard to the question of loss / damage that this “illegal” code may cause us: I obviously cannot give details of our business plans in a public forum. However, the decoder source provides information needed to develop an encoder (and indeed this was the stated plan when it was first released). This could obviously impact our sales of encoder products and SDKs. Secondly, though a Flash decoder binary is available for certain platforms, we consider that there are very real and significant ongoing opportunities for revenue in respect of ports to other devices, both in terms of NRE and through source code licenses etc.

Others have asked why On2Tech did not chime in earlier or more often. I must confess that this has been a source of great frustration to me. I am not usually backward in coming forward so to speak, but please understand my position, namely that because of the possibility of litigation at some point in the future, it would not be appropriate of me to sound off on the forum without any reference to our lawyers and members of the management team. FoxyShadis actually put it quite well if slightly condescendingly :rolleyes:

“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.”

I think most, if not all of the members of the forum would now accept that the ONLY credible explanations for how this code came into being are either that it was based on stolen code or on decompiled code (perhaps the Java as this is probably the easiest to decompile). I would argue that both are illegal, so proving which of these two actually took place is irrelevant. Even if you wish to try and deny the legal argument, surely none of you can seriously give credit to this individual for creating an ORIGINAL WORK.

I sincerely hope that we can put this to bed once and for all as it is a huge distraction to me and to other members of the engineering team.

That’s it from me ….

THE END

P.S. IMHO, de-compilation is to genuine reverse engineering what paint by numbers is to a Picasso.

P.P.S. © On2Tech !

Sirber

27th April 2006, 17:37

That’s it from me ….

THE ENDNo need to hang yourself ;)

On2Tech

27th April 2006, 17:47

No need to hang yourself ;)

No need to do it myself certainly... no doubt there will be a queue forming shortly.

foxyshadis

27th April 2006, 18:02

Sorry, I didn't mean to be condescending, whatever your position is. I just know that many companies have policies where employees are allowed to discuss certain topics and not others (Financials, touchy legal matters, and upcoming product specifics in particular), at least without consultation or deferring to others, and it seemed that people were missing that.

On2Tech

27th April 2006, 18:07

soresu

27th April 2006, 18:14

Originally posted by On2Tech

P.S. IMHO, de-compilation is to genuine reverse engineering what paint by numbers is to a Picasso.

Surely aside from a binary/hex view of the decoders output, de-compilation is the surest first step to reverse-engineering?
Sorry if this sounds stupid... im an artist, not an engineer! :D

On2Tech

27th April 2006, 18:51

Surely aside from a binary/hex view of the decoders output, de-compilation is the surest first step to reverse-engineering?
Sorry if this sounds stupid... im an artist, not an engineer! :D

It was intended as a “slightly” flippant comment :o

The serious point I was making though is that to work out something by black box analysis can be very difficult (in the case of trying to work out something like the VP6 bitstream from analysis of content, nigh on impossible). On the other hand to simply run a de-compiler tool and copy what someone else has done does not strike me as clever at all.

But what would I know. I am a strictly FORWARD engineer!

GodofaGap

27th April 2006, 21:39

Perhaps for EU people this (http://www.jenkins-ip.com/serv/serv_6.htm#a9) is an interesting read. Amongst other things, it says that according to the EU copyright directive decompilation is not a valid way of reverse engineering (or at least analysis, but what is the difference then?) and that the reverse engineering must be indispensable. I do not know if the RE of VP6 code was indispensable.

But of course, different countries, different laws.

dragongodz

28th April 2006, 00:43

Many on the forum, have asked why we have not supplied proof. We have, what I believe is a compelling case that copyright has been infringed and also that licensing terms may well have been breached.
you have ? exactly where, when and to whom have you given any sort of proof to substantiate what you are saying ? without something concrete everything, including discussion in this thread, is suposition at best.

Surely it is obvious that the place for presenting proof per sé is a courtroom (if it comes to that), and that any public disclosure of our evidence in advance might act to forewarn and forearm any adversary and hence prejudice our position.
that quite frankley is a copout. its already been said before that it doesnt have to be a public disclosure. privatly showing SOME proof to a few indepandant and respected third parties, who could then back up your claims, would work aswell.

In any case, even if we convinced Rjamorim, what is to stop someone else putting the stuff up and demanding proof, then another and another?
nothing. however if you provided the proof to select individuals ,as i said above, you could get the support so that if anybody did try and post the sources in or at respectable forums or sites would be told not to etc. now i am guessing that isnt enough for you. consider however that even huge companies like MS cant stop dodgy versions of their software from appearing on the net and what exactly do you expect ? do you really think having lawyers harrasing people who do and have complied with legalities when shown it was real is going to get you better results ? is that really going to stop the code being somewhere on the net ?

Some on the Doom9 board seem to think that defending and promoting this behaviour is somehow taking the moral high ground! I don’t mind saying that this annoys me big time.
but have you considered its On2's behaviour that has actually annoyed people and not taking some moral high ground as you say ?

Liisachan

28th April 2006, 01:39

compilation of source code and de-compilation, (both forms of translation) do not circumvent copyright.

Wrong. Especially if de-compiled thing is re-implemented in "clean room". I'm not talking about my personal opinion, just saying the fact already established in key cases.

"Under United States law, reverse engineering a patented item can be infringement; however, if the artifact or process is protected by trade secrets instead of by a patent, then reverse engineering the artifact or process is lawful as long as the artifact or process is obtained legitimately." ... "This process is sometimes termed Reverse Code Engineering or RCE 3. As an example, decompilation of binaries for the Java platform" ...

- Reverse engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering): From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Clean room design is useful as a defense against copyright and trade secret infringement because it relies on independent invention. However, because independent invention is not a defense against patents, clean room designs typically cannot be used to circumvent patent restrictions."

- Clean room design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's why you should obfuscate the java. If what you are naively beliving was true, you wouldn't need obfuscater, but if you don't like that "the decoder source provides information needed to develop an encoder" and you "accept that the JAVA binary is out there" then you do have to obfuscate the code. (This part is not a legal duty. I'm just talking about my personal view.)

As Rjamorim has shown, simply decompiling other peoples binaries be they JAR files or other compiled binaries is not an inherently clever thing that should be applauded as an academic achievement by the open source community. He didn't stop that because of such a reason; simply he doesn't have any right to re-distribute that jar. I can see excellent engineers are sometimes not that good at laws, fancying over unrelated metaphors, just like lawers are bad at programming. Whether or not a monky could do the same, is unrelated. You are basically saying "It is too easy; therefore it should be illegal," which is not correct.

I feel great sympathy for you, On2Tech, even though your discussion is incorrect (Ask your lawer if you don't believe me). You are a nice person. And the reason you couldn't make a comment soon is understandable too.

Rjamorim, now, how about being a bit more kind to On2Tech?

rjamorim

28th April 2006, 02:25

Rjamorim, now, how about being a bit more kind to On2Tech?

Elaborate, please

Liisachan

28th April 2006, 03:02

Already told you, "they could ask you to help them" blah blah. ..."Some kind of compromise is needed" blah blah.

On2Tech said "I sincerely hope that we can put this to bed once and for all as it is a huge distraction to me and to other members of the engineering team." which must be true.

Personally I am more interested in supporting new non-MPEG non-MS codecs, or in spending time for something more productive, than in wasting more time here. From what was posted by On2Tech, I assume they can't give you any solid evidence even if they want to, as they don't know the truth either. Nothing productive is coming out of demanding something impossible. If "they didn't show me the proof" is the only reason for you not to do what is asked, that is.

As a side note, that I'm feeling sorry for On2 doesn't mean RE is illegal. RE is generally legal, no matter how one feels. (On2Tech has a wrong idea that RE should be something very difficult.) But that's not related here.

maven

28th April 2006, 08:37

It is also my understanding, that just as translation of a novel from say English to French or indeed English to French and then back to English, does not circumvent the original author’s copyright, so compilation of source code and de-compilation, (both forms of translation) do not circumvent copyright. If this were not true then all copyright protection would be meaningless.

Merely as an observation, but what if someone read the novel, and then wrote his own novel with a very similar story, maybe even in a different language, but without any verbatim copying? There was a very recent case of this where Dan Brown was accused of this (for "The DaVinci Code" IIRC).

GodofaGap

28th April 2006, 08:55

that quite frankley is a copout. its already been said before that it doesnt have to be a public disclosure. privatly showing SOME proof to a few indepandant and respected third parties, who could then back up your claims, would work aswell.
It's not a copout, and what you suggest does not work at all. Why should On2 even trust these people? On2 has nothing to prove to them. Court is the only place where On2 will have to substantiate their claims.

nothing. however if you provided the proof to select individuals ,as i said above, you could get the support so that if anybody did try and post the sources in or at respectable forums or sites would be told not to etc.
Don't you realize how meaningless this sounds? You expect On2 to trust on other's people good-will, while they already feel it has been violated. These people you suggest can't stop anyone from re-publishing this code. They just can't. So why should On2 even try to do what you say?

consider however that even huge companies like MS cant stop dodgy versions of their software from appearing on the net and what exactly do you expect ?
Well "MS and other huge companies" are in quite a different position than On2, this comparison doesn't hold at all. But actually what you are saying is:

"We can decompile your code, we can violate your copyright, we can violate your EULA's, and guess what On2? There's not a SINGLE thing you can do about it. Haha!"

but have you considered its On2's behaviour that has actually annoyed people and not taking some moral high ground as you say ?
Don't anyone here even dare speak of "moral high ground".

dragongodz

28th April 2006, 11:35

It's not a copout, and what you suggest does not work at all. Why should On2 even trust these people?
hmm these same people On2 came to to help with beta testing ? your right of course, we are all just scum who you really have to keep your eye on.(sarcasm for those that missed it)

Court is the only place where On2 will have to substantiate their claims.
if a person or company decides to say they dont really want to sue people then they should expect to provide some proof of their claims at the same time. otherwise it amounts to no more than threats and FUD.

These people you suggest can't stop anyone from re-publishing this code. They just can't. So why should On2 even try to do what you say?

because it could stop it from being publicised on respectable forums(like this) or mailing lists(such as ffmpeg) etc. if On2 is not interested in it not being spread through these avenues without resorting to court then why are they posting on them ? why are they advertising their latest codec ? why have they asked for testers in the past ?

what you are saying is:

"We can decompile your code, we can violate your copyright, we can violate your EULA's, and guess what On2? There's not a SINGLE thing you can do about it. Haha!"
may i suggest you dont ever try and put words in my mouth. i said exactly what i meant. you obviously seem to think this threatening people with lawyers is going to stop it from being out there somewhere. its not. all it is doing is pissing off people on respectable sites.

Don't anyone here even dare speak of "moral high ground".
jeez what exactly is your problem ? On2Tech was the one who said some peoples actions are based on a supposed moral high ground. i asked him if he has considered actions could be based on other. i really dont care what you think about it, your posts speak volumes.

Doom9

28th April 2006, 12:01

Without an EULA, any distribution of, copying of (including creation of any derivative work) and potentially even USE of a binary, may constitute an infringement of copyright.That simply cannot be true. I've been both buyer and creator of individual software and we always set the license restrictions in the contract that was signed prior to the start of development. So unless otherwise mentioned, customer X using application A of mine, can keep on using the application indefinitely and for an unlimited amount of users, as long as the contract is not violated. You don't need an EULA to grant permission to use an application.
And many EULA prohibitions, especially when it comes to reverse engineering, or void in many countries (and I fully support that.. it's not right if a company can impose arbitrary restrictions.. and copyright law covers unauthorized use of an application just fine).

If I can sum up your argument, basically it's that libvp62 was created by decompiling the jar file and translating the code from java to c++. Unless my mind fails me, I see nothing in copyright law to directly cover this. The decompilation shouldn't infringe upon anything, but what comes thereafter can be problematic. Say, after looking at the decompiled sources, somebody writes a spec of the format, and the same or another party writes a decoder based on that specification. That constitutes clean room reverse engineering. However, if you copy parts of that code, then it's copyright infringement (just as is using parts of an open source work in a commercial application might violate the open source license, at least if that license is the GPL and the sources of the commercial application are not made available upon request).

So it comes down to how libvp62 was created. If the spec approach was taken, then there's no problem. If the code was read in one language and translated to another, then likely that's in violation of copyright law. If the code was read in one language, and translated not basically line for line, but as maven described "in your own words", then that can hardly by copyright infringement. Just as the Da Vinci Code case was turned down, I'm quite confident that there are many commercial programs out there that were inspired by open source software .. but inspiration isn't forbidden (even though the software lobby tries to patent mere ideas and workflows so that in the end one cannot write software without unwillingly and unknowingly make use of certain patents).

GodofaGap

28th April 2006, 14:02

hmm these same people On2 came to to help with beta testing ? your right of course, we are all just scum who you really have to keep your eye on.(sarcasm for those that missed it)
I am sure you remember the Ateme beta-test debacle. No, not all are scum but not all are saints either. And on the internet it is very hard to tell who is which.

if a person or company decides to say they don't really want to sue people then they should expect to provide some proof of their claims at the same time.
Sure, but not under these conditions, not anymore. I don't know where rjamorim got the truemotion.jar file from, but if it originates from On2 (I wonder from where else), it would appear he is violating their copyright.

because it could stop it from being publicised on respectable forums(like this) or mailing lists(such as ffmpeg) etc. if On2 is not interested in it not being spread through these avenues without resorting to court then why are they posting on them ? why are they advertising their latest codec ? why have they asked for testers in the past ?
Well, that appeared all to have happened before they were allegedly 'stolen' (in whatever way you want interpret that) from, didn't it? I haven't seen any respect in any direction from then on.

may i suggest you dont ever try and put words in my mouth. i said exactly what i meant.
May I suggest you to rephrase your words then? You clearly make the suggestion that it is futile for On2 to pursue this issue, and that they should accept the spreading of this code as a fact of life. Just like other companies (e.g. MS and other huge ones) did.

you obviously seem to think this threatening people with lawyers is going to stop it from being out there somewhere. its not. all it is doing is pissing off people on respectable sites.
And you obviously seem to think that it is quite incomprehensible that On2 seeks for legal council in this matter. That it is quite incomprehensible that On2 doesn't want to make mistakes with disclosing source (in public or private) that can possibly hurt their business even more in the future. On2 is not trying to win a popularity quiz here. Now you may not like this, but you really need to do a reality check and understand that On2 simply cannot rely on 'the community' to solve this issue. It just doesn't have the authority to do that.

I have read the letters posted by rjamorim: and at one point this (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=816575&postcount=134) was written.
Now I do not know if you will voluntarily remove the VP6.2 code from your website, but I hope you will immediately. To the extent there is any way to prove our issues without jeopardizing On2's proprietary position, we are willing to do so, but first the code must be removed now.
Why wasn't this opportunity taken? Why was the chance to find out the real intentions of On2 omitted? Did everyone just miss it?

jeez what exactly is your problem ? On2Tech was the one who said some peoples actions are based on a supposed moral high ground. i asked him if he has considered actions could be based on other. i really dont care what you think about it, your posts speak volumes.
I will tell you what I think about it anyway. As you long as you don't get any further than being childish and say "Well, they started first!", you have no right to talk about moral high ground, respect or any other words of these nature. You just don't.

On2Tech

28th April 2006, 14:44

LIISACHAN: I am really pleased that you draw attention to these definitions because far from contradicting my position I think they re-enforce it!

Regarding “Clean Room”: The first paragraph talks about the use of clean room reverse engineering as a strategy that may circumvent copyright, BUT the second paragraph defines it. I will not quote too much directly for fear of copyright infringement :D and you can check for yourself, but the key thing is that you MUST be able to demonstrate that the implementation was not contaminated by ANY knowledge of the proprietary techniques used.

How can someone claim this if they have simply decompiled code and copied it or done a translation into another language. This precisely is NOT a clean room design.

It is also clear to me that just claiming that something is a clean room implementation is not a get out of jail free card for copyright infringers. You have to be able to back up the claim.

Even their definition of reverse engineering has an interesting phrase namely "without actually copying ANYTHING from the original". But, some on the boards have themselves observed that there are chucks of the LibVp62 C++ code that are almost identical to the decompiled Java (variable names aside)... In fact, in many situations porting decompiled Java to C++ would require little more than cut and paste.

I do not think that there is even a vaguely credible case that this code is a genuine "clean room" implementation, created without any reference to or copying from our code (be that physically stolen code or code that was obtained by de-compilation of one of our binary objects). Is anyone even suggesting that this is the case?

Regarding checking with a lawyer: I would be the first to admit that I am not a lawyer and that my common sense understanding of the law might well be no better than the average lawyers understanding of software. For this reason I did check with them before posting (I would probably have got into deep water if I had not done so). Basically, they agreed that if you can show that something is directly derivative or substantially similar and hence obviously NOT a clean room implementation, then copyright will apply. They also agreed that my examples were basically sound.

There are a number of other interesting things that I have read in Wickepedia today having first followed LIISACHAN ‘s link, though I doubt this can be considered to be a definitive guide to the law. In talking about derivative works it makes clear that where a work is based on or contains elements of a previous work, it may be deemed a “derivative work” or “new version” and be entitled to its own copyright. However, this is ONLY true if the original copyright owner gives permission… otherwise it is simply considered to be a COPY. Translations and even DRAMATIZATIONS (where clearly the words will not stay the same and there is some re-telling / interpretation of a story) are quoted as examples.

To address MAVEN’s point. Dan Brown wrote a story based on some ideas contained in what was claimed to be a work of non-fiction. One expert I heard talking on the subject said that if the original had been a work of fiction and they had not claimed it as an academic work, the ruling might have gone the other way.

Why… because just re-telling something that is identifiably the same basic story in your own words is not enough to get around copyright (see above re. dramatizations). By the way, for a video decoder, just how useful would “similar story” be? One bit wrong and all hell breaks loose.

@ Dragongodz.

I think a superfluous stray comma may have misled you here. It should read:

“We have what I believe is a compelling case that copyright has been infringed and also that licensing terms may well have been breached.”

According to my (and our IP lawyers) interpretation of the law, the community has already furnished itself with evidence that the LibVP62 code at the very least infringes copyright, namely its similarity with the decompiled JAVA.

Some of you may disagree with this interpretation, but I do not see how we can be expected to resolve that without resort to the courts, which NONE of us want and some would still dispute. We will just have to agree to differ. I am not threatened by people disagreeing with me, nor am I inclined to easily take offence, (though I have a sneaking suspicion that “VideoMixer” may have intended his last post to be slightly offensive ;) ).

It is very easy to say with hindsight that we should have handled things differently, but we have not been in this position before and were in uncertain waters. We did not and do not want to litigate unnecessarily, but we DO want to protect our assets (and ultimately our jobs :( ).

For the record, I have a huge amount of respect for the open source community and the good works that they do and our actions absolutely 100% are NOT and never have been intended to be an attack on that community.

On2Tech

dragongodz

28th April 2006, 14:54

No, not all are scum but not all are saints either. And on the internet it is very hard to tell who is which.
you may not be able to be sure with a lot but there are some pretty promanint people who it would be hard to call discreditable. take doom9(the person) as just 1 example. he has been sent early betas of software for years and never leaked anything. is it hard to tell he would be trustworthy enough ?

Sure, but not under these conditions, not anymore.
why ? On2's claims have not really changed, ok shifted about a bit to try and cover RE but thats all.

I don't know where rjamorim got the truemotion.jar file from, but if it originates from On2 (I wonder from where else), it would appear he is violating their copyright.
if you read his posts you will see he already removed the .jar on his own because on thinking about it he thought it would be of real questionable legality.

Well, that appeared all to have happened before they were allegedly 'stolen' (in whatever way you want interpret that) from, didn't it? I haven't seen any respect in any direction from then on.
the respect started to dry up when On2 decided to use lawyers and provide no proof. until then nobody had any real problems with them. if they had come to this forum, for example, and simply stated that they believed the source code was stolen and would provide some limited proof to a couple of trustworthy people to back that up this would never have got this far here. so you can not complain about On2 not getting a lot of respect back when its they who treated people with no respect first.

You clearly make the suggestion that it is futile for On2 to pursue this issue
please reread. i do not say it is futile. i infact say it can be stopped from spreading around reputable sites etc.

and that they should accept the spreading of this code as a fact of life. Just like other companies (e.g. MS and other huge ones) did.
accept that there will still probably be places on the internet where the source code is ? yes, thats a reality. however limiting those places by not having big and reputable sites have it is a different thing that is possible.

Now you may not like this, but you really need to do a reality check and understand that On2 simply cannot rely on 'the community' to solve this issue. It just doesn't have the authority to do that.
hmm i think you need to do a reality check aswell. of course the community can not stop it everywere, i already said that. it certainly CAN help to reduce it though. alienating it though is not going to help anyones cause.

Why wasn't this opportunity taken? Why was the chance to find out the real intentions of On2 omitted? Did everyone just miss it?

actually rjamorim did remove the code at 1 point. however if you keep reading all the emails the lawyer has also said theres basically no way anyone is going to see the proof/source outside of court. so who missed the opportunity again ?

As you long as you don't get any further than being childish and say "Well, they started first!", you have no right to talk about moral high ground, respect or any other words of these nature. You just don't.
HAHAHA now thats rich. i am curious though as to where you think you have ANY right to tell me what i can or can not talk about. "You just don't." thats got to be one of the weakest reasons for anything. thanks for the laugh though. :)

Liisachan

28th April 2006, 16:13

@On2Tech Your discussion is wrong: "clean room" is just a 120% sufficient condition, not a necessary condition at all. But let's stop wasting our time... all you want is to let Rareware stop hosting that src code, right? If so, I already PMed rjamorim about that like 24 hours ago, and he/she was like "Yeah, I guess..." It's not like I'm his/her friend, but I figured that would be the fastest if you were not going to PM him/her yourself.

Like you said, Rarewares can't show any decisive evidence that it was RE'ed. Whereas On2 can't show any decisive evidence that it was not RE'ed. So I guess this will get nowhere without some kind of compromise from both sides. You said you wouldn't mind binary files being around (.class files in that .jar, that .jar itself, or anything). Or maybe you rather meant "it can't be helped" but anyway, it's a sort of compromise you made. So I guess now is when Rarewares should be a bit kinder to you.

GodofaGap

28th April 2006, 16:17

if you read his posts you will see he already removed the .jar on his own because on thinking about it he thought it would be of real questionable legality.
http://www.rarewares.org/files/others/VP6_src_legal.zip

This link shouldn't be working then?

actually rjamorim did remove the code at 1 point. however if you keep reading all the emails the lawyer has also said theres basically no way anyone is going to see the proof/source outside of court. so who missed the opportunity again ?
You are just being funny now right? He removed the source code and replaced it with the jar file, and you would consider that complying with the request? Erm... ok.

relevant post (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=817652&postcount=160)

HAHAHA now thats rich. i am curious though as to where you think you have ANY right to tell me what i can or can not talk about. "You just don't." thats got to be one of the weakest reasons for anything. thanks for the laugh though. :)
Yeah, whatever.

On2Tech

28th April 2006, 16:25

DragonGodz

I recognize that you were previously involved in beta testing for us and respect you for that, so I am truly sorry that you now appear to hold On2 in such unreserved contempt.

Perhaps if we were able to turn back the clocks we would have handled things differently from the start. But that unfortunately is not an option.

If we were now to provide you or anyone else with an original code extract, for example, which shows just how strikingly similar the LibVp62 code is; how would that help? People will just point out that the same can be said of the decompiled Java. I have presented an argument that it does not matter. That it clearly was not a clean room implementation and matching up code either to the original or decompiled code is more than enough to demonstrate infringement of copyright. The latter has already been done by some members of this forum so where is the need for further proof?

If you will not accept this argument, then I can’t see that there is much more I can say. If you think that our lawyers would be willing to release, or allow me to release, any other more specific evidence outside of a courtroom, then I think that this is naive.

I certainly would not suggest that you have acted out of malice in this matter. Also, if you feel that On2 have treated you or others on this forum with disrespect then I would like to reassure you that this was not intended and offer my apologies.

But I also want you to know that I think we have been judged a bit harshly and that there has at times been a lack of balance. It seems that we are being assumed by many to be in the wrong unless we can prove otherwise. Our code has been ripped off and suddenly we are the villains! To say that we are in the wrong simply because our lawyers got involved is I think a bit disingenuous. Rather it would have been surprising for a publicly traded company if they had not.

On2Tech

On2Tech

28th April 2006, 16:44

Sharktooth

28th April 2006, 17:45

Well, i already proposed a solution for both sides that would bring some advantages to both on2 and the OSS community.
Releasing the decoder source will make *nix and mac users able to playback vp6.x contents and will help the spreading of the vp6.x format.
That is a GREAT advantage for users and for YOU (on2).
Yes, you can guess the bitstream and specs from the decoder sources... but again it will be a winning situation for on2 since the vp6 format will be spread even more...

Sirber

28th April 2006, 17:53

would be spred even more with a CLI encoder instead of crap VFW.

dragongodz

28th April 2006, 18:31

Yeah, whatever.
you bring absolutly nothing useful to this thread and are just wasting my time. so consider yourself ignored by me.

that you now appear to hold On2 in such unreserved contempt.
not at all. if you look back at my posts you will see i have said i have lost respect because of the course of action taken when it could have been handled differently. so no its not contempt at all and there has been no malice from me either.

If we were now to provide you or anyone else with an original code extract, for example, which shows just how strikingly similar the LibVp62 code is; how would that help? People will just point out that the same can be said of the decompiled Java.
yes NOW they could. however i mentioned that you could do a limited showing of some proof, even just a little, before that arguement even started.

The latter has already been done by some members of this forum so where is the need for further proof?
and this was as you say done by other members here and not by On2. its unfortunate that its been left to others instead of On2 clearing this up without the need for this mess.

If you think that our lawyers would be willing to release, or allow me to release,
sorry but thats plain wrong. the lawyers are hired by you(On2) and can only advise you. they can not tell you what you can and can not release.

But I also want you to know that I think we have been judged a bit harshly and that there has at times been a lack of balance.
maybe but on the same hand you must also admit that neither you nor those emails from your lawyer has really been the most help to clear this up.

It seems that we are being assumed by many to be in the wrong unless we can prove otherwise. Our code has been ripped off and suddenly we are the villains!
you know thats not true. it was On2 that did the accusing and in a rather unfreindly way. as i said before, that sort of action is more likely to annoy and get peoples backs up.

To say that we are in the wrong simply because our lawyers got involved is I think a bit disingenuous.
no, to treat a community that you have had long time contact with by using lawyers, especially when it could have been cleared up here and other places without them, is what was criticised, by me atleast. if you read back you will see at no point do i say you are lying but at no point do i say you are telling the truth. the simple fact is you gave nothing to go by and sent lawyers to talk for you. are you really surprised some people didnt like that ?

GodofaGap

28th April 2006, 18:42

you bring absolutly nothing useful to this thread and are just wasting my time. so consider yourself ignored by me.
You haven't had any contribution to this thread besides mentioning "FUD" a few dozen times, and some fairy-tale about how On2 should have done this all without lawyers. You do not live in the real world. There are too many problems with your approach, yet you fail to see that. So resorting to personal attacks is the best you can do?

Sirber

28th April 2006, 18:47

Guys guys! This is a forum, this is internet, it is virtual ;)

GodofaGap

28th April 2006, 20:30

Yes, you are right. I apologize for my behaviour.

My views are so different from some of the others particiapting in this thread that I doubt any further discussion would have brought us closer anyway. I will refrain from posting anymore in this thread therefor. In reality, it is On2's turn to make a move now, whatever it might be.

Sorry, again.

On2Tech

28th April 2006, 21:47

not at all. if you look back at my posts you will see i have said i have lost respect because of the course of action taken when it could have been handled differently. so no its not contempt at all and there has been no malice from me either.

I have already accepted that you intend no malice and also that with the benefit of hindsight we might have handled things on this board differently.

sorry but thats plain wrong. the lawyers are hired by you(On2) and can only advise you. they can not tell you what you can and can not release.

Sadly I think that you misjudge my (On2Tech's) influence if you think that I am in a position to overrule the advice of our lawyers of many years standing.

you know thats not true. it was On2 that did the accusing and in a rather unfreindly way. as i said before, that sort of action is more likely to annoy and get peoples backs up.

no, to treat a community that you have had long time contact with by using lawyers, especially when it could have been cleared up here and other places without them, is what was criticised, by me atleast. if you read back you will see at no point do i say you are lying but at no point do i say you are telling the truth. the simple fact is you gave nothing to go by and sent lawyers to talk for you. are you really surprised some people didnt like that ?

I am sorry but I must have missed something here. I was not aware that our lawyers ever had any direct contact with this community (Doom9, have you received any emails or letters)? I know that they sent letters to all sites who published the code saying that it infringes our rights (which I am certain that it does) and asking them to take it down. Surely you would not expect me to handle that? None of these were particularly aggressive or threatening by legal standards. In all cases apart from one, these sites responded promptly. The most recent site to post the code just happens to be run by a member of this forum. He received emails in the same way as they others, though perhaps by this time our lawyers were getting more impatient. Even so I think their correspondence with Rjamorim has been broadly respectful. The fact that he published their letters and his replies to the forum should not be confused with us in some way setting our lawyers on the community.

Perhaps, I should have said more and said it earlier. Perhaps if I had done so, and had presented our case to you all on day one (actually I was travelling at the time so there would always have been at least a couple of days delay), things would have come out differently. But as I have explained, I am not always free to say what I want when I want, and we cannot now turn back the clock. So please, lets reflect on lessons learned and move on.

Now I would like to forget about this for a while and try and enjoy the weekend.

Respectfully

On2Tech

dragongodz

29th April 2006, 04:50

Sadly I think that you misjudge my (On2Tech's) influence if you think that I am in a position to overrule the advice of our lawyers of many years standing.
i clearly said On2 meaning the company and not yourself. so no i did not mean you had the power to do as you wished but rather the company that hired and pays the fees of the lawyers.

I was not aware that our lawyers ever had any direct contact with this community
to be clear i mean contact with this community(i dont just mean this forum) through its members and site ops(who can also be members) of course.

Now I would like to forget about this for a while and try and enjoy the weekend.

agreed. my last post and this one were more inline with trying to clear up some misconceptions you seem to have had or do still have. such as saying i know held On2 or yourself in utter contempt.
so have a good weekend. :)

avih

29th April 2006, 13:37

FWIW, I think the issue is rather simple.
Let's put the legal stuff aside here for a sec.

What we've got here is a code which was written by On2, and a copy of it which got circulating, something that On2 isn't interested in.

Whether or not it's legal to distribute it in some form or another is not really the important part IMHO. If one respects On2 then the code should be removed. If there's no respect for On2 then one should be ready to figh or hide or face possible consequences (fully legitimate decision BTW IMO).

Since we don't approve laws that seem unreasonable from our perspective (DCMA et al), we shouldn't look only at the legal perspective as it's different from place to place, and will eventually be decided upon the amount of money spent on lawyers.

Forget the law. They request that it gets removed. Do we respect that or not?

avih

ps.
I'd give On2 a big thumb up if they eventually (rather sooner than later though) decide to release the decoder as OSS, possibly with multiple licenses, such that they can still license it to 3rd parties which sell products, and allow free usage on OSS apps. Not as simple as it might sound, but there are precedences.

peace.

smok3

29th April 2006, 14:43

yeah, they should release the code under some oss licence, thats pretty much the only clean thing they can do right now (the 'stolen' code is allready in cirulation, so why allow the possibility that some half-broken decoder will come into works from that?), and yes, since they are the only code owners, there is no problem in multilicensing either (oss + commercial license is not a problem in that case afaik).

or should i say, learn from the big boys (since your such a tiny/small company i mean):
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

Doom9

30th April 2006, 00:18

Doom9, have you received any emails or lettersNo I have not. But then again I have not been hosting the material in question either and there's no working link to a libvp62 in this thread as far as my search goes. I have had a look at libvp62 and the results of jad but first of all it's a video codec so there's lots of maths to give me a headache (I've had more than my share at college and I'm extremely glad not having to worry about matrices, integrals, differentials, probability calculations and the likes on a daily basis anymore.. I never quite liked that stuff), and it's not like you can make any reasonable judgement without at least trying to understand how the code works.. and I just don't have the time and motivation to do so.

Since the cat's out of the bag either way, what's the harm in posting how libvp62 resembles On2's java code? Say you go to court, at the very latest at this point that information is going to leak anyway.. just as Groklaw is reporting everything on the SCO cases.

rjamorim

30th April 2006, 03:38

You guys are all nuts, but in a nice sort of way :D

Well, I decided to compromise. Not because On2 ever contacted me in reasonable terms (they didn't, all they did was to brandish the DMCA as some soft of Mighty Sword of Destruction +5), but because I discussed this a lot with Liisachan and we came to conclusions that seem to be the best to all parties. Liisachan is smart and reasonable. On2 are <censored> that lost whatever modicum of respect I had for them due to that old VP3 thing.

So, the compromise is: I'll stop hosting the sources but I'll keep hosting the directshow filter and demo decoder. The directshow filter is much more useful than sources for the vast majority of users out there anyway. And I'm considering linking to other binaries using libVP62 (I know of one being worked on as we speak) at RareWares as well.

Should be enough for everyone. If it isn't... tough luck. I have more valuable stuff to worry about anyway.

Best regards (to the good guys ;) )

Roberto.

Edit: these changes will only appear on RW tomorrow (sunday)

Liisachan

30th April 2006, 07:03

@On2Tech
I refrained from posting anything here to make sure you can have a good weekend, but since I've been named...
What I actually did was sending 2 PMs to rjamorim, costing a few minutes and like 10 minutes respectively. Rjamorim is giving me too much credit.

Here's 2 things I wanted to say to you:
(1) You said "I accept that the JAVA binary is out there and cannot be put back into the bag so to speak" which is true too. But accepting that .jar being around, is practically giving anyone the same (or the similar) thing than libvp62. Any good programmers (not me) can decompile it and re-implement it easily. So, how about considering what Sharktooth, smok3 and others suggested? If this goes on, there will be buggy VP62 decoders out there (you said that code contained a bug which was fixed later). Buggy decoders could unfairly damage the reputation of VP62. This already happened in the relationship between LQ Tremor decoder in ffdshow and Ogg Vorbis. I'm sure many users who use ffdshow's def Vorbis decoder without a 2nd thought assume that Vorbis is not so good. Which is really frustrating, because it's not Vorbis' fault...

(2) I'd like to support anyone who might create an alternative for AVC/VC-1. Many said they started disliking On2 because of this mess, but I won't. I once got unmotivated to support On2, but greatly changed my mind again after reading what you posted in person. I believe I'm not the only one feeling that way. This was an unfortunate accident after all.
On the other hand, On2 is responsible too, for not obfuscating the Java code (if that is the origin), or (if it's stolen by a hacker) for not keeping your "intellectual property" secure if it's that precious to you.

VP6 can't be an alternative but VP7 can. I hope On2 will be concentrating on VP7 (or maybe VP8?).

We too got a legal letter from lawyers hired by Microsoft when their Windows 2000 code was leaked and we quoted a few lines in our (technical and harmless) news article where one of us tried to judge if it was authentic or fake by testing an unknown feature of TaskMgr which could be read from the src. We complied with their request but felt really strange, because it was their fault not ours that the code was leaked, yet we were treated as if we were criminals. It was like, they let out a big fart, and then got angry saying "You unlawfully listened to it. It's our intellectual property and you have no rights to blah blah"
Um, anyway, maybe that traumatic experience was the reason I overreacted in a weird way here in this thread.