People ripping people (2nd Round): DVDx versus DVDBackup

[dragongodz]

i have to disagree. just because someone does not understand you are being sarcastic does not mean they deserve to be ripped off.

a real life example for you. a freind of my wifes family bought a dvd burner for christmas. now he is not computer minded but just wanted to mainly backup his childrens dvds (especially the disney ones which are only very limited released). now he did do a bit of research and had a list of software that sounded like it would do the job. amongst that list was things like replicant. thankfully he had me to stear him in the right direction.

the point is that if he had found your site during his searching it would not have been clear that you were not serious about that software. spelling mistakes mean nothing.

he or anyone else does not deserve to be ripped off just because they dont get your meaning. just as those people(i wont call them companies) do not deserve to get his money for it. maybe it is too much to expect that people would want to help people just starting out instead of ridicule them.

[mrbass]

@dragongodz
excellent point. I stand corrected. It's a confusing world out there especially those just jumping in to backing up dvds.

One thing that made my day was stories about that 321studios court case...guess who is named as defendants
"The suit names Internet Enterprises Inc., RDestiny LLC, HowtocopyDVDs.com, DVDBackupbuddy.com and DVDSqueeze.com as defendants. None could immediately be reached for comment."

Well you gotta love it in one sense that the scam artists are having to defend themselves. Still this whole thing is ridiculous because where the profit is being generated from illegal movies and being deprived is two things:

1) People who upload/download movies (divx, dvd-r). DVD-R isn't a huge concern because while technically possible for someone to download 4.7GB it just isn't happening all that much. Sure many do it but not the masses. More are download divx because of the file size. Probably 2nd is vcd / svcd downloading, etc.

2) Biggest is people selling them in New York, L.A. on the streets making profit off of others intellectual property. That's flat out jail time and they should be prosecuted. This has nothing to do with DVD-5 (dvd-r, dvd+r) media and all these dvd backup software is not used. Instead they used $30,000 or more up dual-layer dvd copying machines to crank out perfect copies. CSS is irrelevant. This is what they do in many Asian countries and other countries.

I guess what I'm getting at is why restrict an average Joe for making a DVD backup. No revenue is being lost. Bust the factories that crank them about by the thousands. Sell them on ebay, etc. The movie box office figures are definitely NOT on the decline that's for sure.

Obviously if in the end if the court rules it's illegal in the U.S. to circumvent CSS encryption when abiding by the Fair Use doctorine then I guess there goes my site. I'll have to take out any mirrors of software that decrypt a dvd and most likely won't even be allowed to link to dvddecrypter lest mention it's name.

[Belgabor]

Here's another one I was put upon someone in the VirtualDub Forum (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54486). It might be 'ok' legally speaking, but probably it isnt. Their webpage is here (www.luxuriousity.com). They sell LuxuriousityVideo(VirtualDub), LuxuriousityOffice(OpenOffice), LuxuriousityPhoto(Gimp) and some other stuff I couldn't identify. Mostly no trace of origin mentioned on the page. Also nothing of the source code.

Imho their name alone is enough to hang them high.

EDIT: Fixed the link (doh!). For more info see the linked thread in the vdub forum.

[mpucoder]

There is a typo in the link (missing the final "i")

But I did manage to get there - you can even buy MySQL (another GPL product) for only $9.95 - the benchmark writeup ( http://www.luxuriousity.com/sql.htm ) is straight from http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/MySQL_Benchmarks.html

Well, I guess it's legal at that price, but why bother? The full download takes no more than 30 minutes on a bad day.

[midiguy]

HAHAHA, oh man. I'm sorry, that whole luxuriousity thing is damn funny! They actually have the balls to post virtualdub screenshots on their website... and they actually name many of the software titles that they are ripping off. man, someone needs to take these morons down.

[The Edge]

http://www.dvdcopydecrypter.com/

This crowd of *$£!&£$ are selling DVDShrink for $89 (was $139)
I've already emailed them a complaint.....unreal!


Edge

[bilu]

We should make a sticky with all the ripped applications mentioned on this thread.


Bilu

[Ookami]

Originally posted by bilu
We should make a sticky with all the ripped applications mentioned on this thread.


Bilu

I always wanted to make a list, but my time never permitted it :( . If you look at my first thoughts when this thread started, I wanted this one to be only temporary sticky...

If you have the time and motivation, contact Swan or Wilbert, and you can maybe do something about it, if they agree :) .

But, still, thanks to Bach this is the most important thread on this board, IMO, as it's even very important for people who don't want to fiddle with this whole scene/hobby stuff, but only want to backup their DVDs. It helps that they will not buy a product wich they can get for free anyway (and, in many cases, with a GPL license too).

Cheers,

Mijo.

[bilu]

Just a compilation of this thread to help making a sticky.

(Haven't put DVDBackup because I'm not sure if it's still a ripoff)


DVD to DivX
http://www.cybergame2000.com/free.htm

is ripoff of

DVDx
http://www.labdv.com/dvdx

--------------------------

DVD Copy Decrypter
http://www.dvdcopydecrypter.com

is ripoff of

DVDShrink
http://www.dvdshrink.org
---------------------------

the DVDSqueeze box is actually Ulead's DVD Movie Factory's box

Ulead
http://www.dacs.org/images/ulead_dvd_movie_factory_box.JPG

DVDSqueeze
http://www.dvdsqueeze.com/boxshots1.jpg

and they have also modded EasyDivx

EasyDivx
http://netti.nic.fi/~temp/easydivx/guide/step1.gif

DVDSqueeze
http://www.famousitalian.com/step01.gif

-----------------------------------

http://www.luxuriousity.com

a lot of ripoffs



Bilu

[bilu]

Some encoding tools sites on Tucows (please check if they are ripoffs):

http://www.convertdvd.info/

http://www.alldj.com/

http://www.avi-vcd.com/

http://www.dvdtox.com/

http://www.2shareit.com/

http://www.artech365.com/mpeg4maker/index.htm


Bilu

[dragongodz]

yep there are so many of these programs around now it is just not funny. i wish i was rich so i could take these "people" to court but the simple truth is that most freeware programmers are not. its also hampered by us living in different countries than these "programs" are released in.

as for a list, well the hard part there is i can tell you of a dozen programs i know that use DVDx source code but they have a different gui. this makes it harder to prove but believe me i can tell with the ones i am thinking of.

mpucoder, no its not legal. they are selling the program which is against the GPL. they could charge for support or for a printed manual or supply on media or others costs (such as downloading, server costs etc) but charging for the program itself is a no no. also they do not state that it is an altered version or supply the altered source code (again against the GPL).

[bilu]

Looks like free A/V software for Windows suffers the most, Luxoriousity is an exception :rolleyes:

Maybe this sort of software should be released in a license compatible with GPL, but not GPL, like having to subscribe using your personal data to have access to the source, free of charge. Source would have to be sent by snail-mail or something.

It could avoid anonymous ripping of tools that have potential to reach the consumer comercially.

Bilu

[mpucoder]

I'm surprised mrbass hasn't posted. He made a list once, and received threats of legal action by one or more of the "listee's", presumably for slander.

[bilu]

I know :(

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54117


Bilu

[bilu]

Originally posted by bilu
Maybe this sort of software should be released in a license compatible with GPL, but not GPL, like having to subscribe using your personal data to have access to the source, free of charge. Source would have to be sent by snail-mail or something.

It could avoid anonymous ripping of tools that have potential to reach the consumer comercially.

I'm quoting myself because I think it is time to investigate open-source licenses that allow source-tracking by free subscribing and making an NDA with those subscribers, and how this can conflict or not with GPL and others.


Bilu

[XiS]

Whoow. Does XMPEG have been ripped off like DVDx?

[bilu]

Don't know, people will have to try and tell, I just collected some links.

[mrbass]

hey what do you know I found my old scam software list in google's cache. Have at it. Search google for copiesanything and hit the cache button when you see mrbass.org
I took out dvdrabbit.com though cuz that's the guy who threatened to sue me.

About Scam Ripoff DVD Copy Software
DVD Scam artists repackage freeware dvd software and bundle it together, write a short tutorial and sell it for money. They advertise on google and other search engines and pay for banners on websites to get the traffic.

Your paying for software you can easily get for free. These scam artists are selling software even when the license explicitly prohibits distribution for sale. Most people just do a search on google for 'dvd copy' and the results are nothing but scam software. Some even sell warez versions of commerical software like copiesanything.com (sells Instant Copy) . Most sell DVDx and they modify the source which is freely available. If anyone has additional scam sites, do let me know.

If you've been ripped off fill out a form with the The Internet Fraud Complaint Center http://www1.ifccfbi.gov/ (IFCC) which is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C). Do a charge back on your credit card immediately.

Tips to avoid getting scammed by ripoff artists
-- Always pay with credit card so you can do a 'charge back'. If you pay with paypal your screwed.
-- If there is no demo or trial version available then it's most likely a scam.
-- Check out other's opinions on forums of doom9.org or dvdrhelp.com about their experiences with dvd copy software.
-- Spam dvd copy software email is always a scam.

www.1stdvdripper.com
www.4-dimwits.com
www.alldj.com/sdvdc
www.amigodvdripper.com
www.backup-dvd.info
www.convertdvd.info
www.copiesanything.com
www.copydvdnow.com
www.copydvds.biz
www.copy-my-dvd.com-download.net
www.dup-dvd.com
www.dvdbackupbuddy.com
www.dvd-burner.ca
www.dvdcopygold.com
www.dvdcopyplus.com
www.dvdcopypro.com
www.dvd-detective.com
www.dvd-ripper.biz
www.dvdsqueeze.com
www.dvds-ripper.com
www.dvd-to-svcd.com
www.dvdwizardpro.com
www.geocities.com/copydvdsoftware
www.go2share.net/dvdrip
www.howtocopydvds.com
www.idvd.ca/dvd-echo
www.nuevasoft.com
www.plymouthchurch.org
www.replicantdvd.com
www.rizalsoftware.com
www.share2.com/dvd-to-vcd
www.shareup.com/super-dvd-ripper.html
www.sofotex.com/dvd-ripper-copy-pro.htm
www.super-dvd-ripper.com
www.systemscrub.com/dvd
www.waverama.com

[bilu]

"Plymouth Church" ??? :confused:

[mrbass]

do a search on google 'plymouthchurch.org dvd' and you'll see the title had dvd copy and crap. Guess they were hacked or something.

[XiS]

I'm currently doing reverse engineering on all the link proposed by bilu. Keep in touch.

[XiS]

SuperDVD (http://www.alldj.com) is a rip off of Xmpeg 4.5. The complete web site has been stored. I can assure you that they will pay for it. I'm continuing to follow your links to check XMPEG based rip offs. Then, I'll contact Jean Luc (DVDx) to let him know that all (mostly) DVD tools different from big software compagny are simple rip off from our programs.

How to recognize a rip off of XMPEG :
In the web site :
DVD to divx tool
Optimized for P4 and AthlonXP
In the software :
It crashs.
May have a correct preview window.
Takes a loong time to open encrypted vobs.
Crashes during "chicken run" and "Eldorado" reading (VOB switching bug)
Strange similarity in options (Shutdown after encoding)

How to recognize a rip off of DVDx:
In the website :
DVD to VCD/SVCD/DVD converter
Optimized for the Pentium 4
Int the software :
Same options.
No or very poor preview window.

XMPEG/DVDx
You can also benchmark the conversion process with the old version of the original file to see if the conversion speed is similar.

http://www.alldj.com : Rip off of XMPEG
http://www.avi-vcd.com : Rip off of DVDx
http://www.convertdvd.info : Rip off of DVDx
http://www.1stDVDRipper.info : Rip off of DVDx

I'm studing a true tracing system (reverse engineering) to confirm the ripp off. Imagine how it is possible to create these kind of tools which simply have been created a few months after DVDx or XMPEG 4.5 seeing that the developpment time for these tools requiere years???? Even the big compagny just begin to outs correct DVD rippers. All the actual video converter which "looks like" are ripp-off. The developpment of : MPEG 2 decoder, AC3 decoder, MPA decoder, MPEG 2 encoder, MPA encoder, etc and integration is not possible in these time laps.
Before spreading this information all around, just let them continue. If someone send them a message, they will simply close the site, and we will not (The authors of ripped of software) able to put in front of the justice, and the Free Software Foundation (Because they use also AC3 or A52dec, MPA decoder and MPEG2 encodeur which are under GNU license)...
As soon as I've time, I can build a little tool which will search for identical parts of code to check if it's a ripp off. It depends also of the compiler. I need to find a real checking method.

Keep in mind that the working effort through with open source project makes the best softwares. And all these ripp off are crappy and a lot of them simply unworkable.

[XiS]

Super DVD Ripper : super-dvd-ripper.com (http://www.super-dvd-ripper.com) is bascally a simple copy of DVDx...

[XiS]

Ok. It seems to be network of programmers which take open source programs and simply modify a little the appearance and sell them. Very easy way to make money. I've noticed 13 open source programs ripped off from DVDx to CDEx.

[mrbass]

For the people complaining about dvdfab having two nag screens it's really a great deterrent from getting it ripped off (not saying it won't happen) but it's a great way to give the program away for free while discouraging the ripoff artists.

[dragongodz]

hey Xis

yes this is the problem i found aswell, its easy for us to tell but mcuh harder to prove to someone who may not fully understand. that is if you took 2 programs to a judge he would need to see more than just having the same feature or doing the same job. with the many variations of compilers etc that could be used this makes it hard to prove. sucks.

[Doom9]

Keep in mind that the working effort through with open source project makes the best softwares.That brings me to a question I've wanted to ask for a long time. The last XMpeg sourcecode I have is v4.2. That's the only one listed on your software page as well. Now assuming that you did not rewrite Xmpeg from scratch since then, you are required to release your source as well. Now I do not want to start a whichhunt, and it's not forbidden to hand out the source only upon request, so assuming that you did not rewrite the entire application without the use of open source code, I hereby ask for a copy of the source corresponding to the latest public XMpeg release. You can contact me privately (PM) for the exchange of the source if you like (but of course once I have it, I'm going to put it on my site since I do believe that if you can, you should offer executable and source at the same place).

[XiS]

You will have a nice package in a few days, the time for me to do the summer cleaning :) :) :) :) :p

[XiS]

The source code was released a few days ago. The rip-off can start :) .

XMPEG source code here (http://www.mp3guest.com/Xmpeg_Index.asp?l=US)

[dragongodz]

i saw xmpeg 5.0 final is out but the source code is still rc3 version. also no source for dvd mism or avi writer ????

[XiS]

There is no modification of code in the source package published for XMPEG. Just Version number and splash updated. AVIWriter is a Free software, not a Open source software.

[Refthoom]

I think I have an idea to get back at these people selling GPL'd software. It's called a ddos attack (or distributed denial of service attack, for those who are not familiar with the lingo). Now normally the way this is done, it's VERY illegal since it involves the use of software kinda like viruses and spyware. It's too much to explain it all here, but there is some very fine reading on it on www.grc.com. Go read it and you know what I mean.

The beauty of this idea is that we use the same sneeky 'borderline' legallity that they do:sly:. But it's only possible with te power of this community.

All you need is an HTML page on your PC that points to the domainname to be 'attacked' that continuously refreshes itself (this can be accomplished with a very simple javascript). The effect is the same as browsing to the domain and continiously clicking on the refresh button and therefore it's _legal_ ;). The PC itself won't use any bandwith to speak of and also use hardly any cpu cycles.

Now of course one such page on one PC won't make much of a difference, but if all forum members (app. 35k?) start up such a page simultaniously, I know for sure that a domain will be inaccesible for as long as you keep 'it' up together.

The best part is, since a thousand PC's would easily do the trick of rendering a site inaccessible, the total community here could render 35 sites inaccessible at the same time, if properly coördinated. That's more than the number of domains on mrbass's list :).

Now wouldn't that be one heck of signal! :devil:

I know it would mean leaving your PC running, but since such a page uses almost no cpu cycles you could do this while you're encoding you backup. So, instead of just starting D2S or DVDx or whatever, you'd also start this ddos-page on your harddisk and voilá. :D

I also have some ideas on how to make and spread such pages and coördinate stuff among forum members, but I didn't want to make this already long story even longer.

BTW, AFAIK I don't brake any forum rules with with this post (I sure hope I don't), but if I do I apologise in advance.

So, anyone ready to take these guys on?:cool:

[DaveEL]

Originally posted by Refthoom
I think I have an idea to get back at these people selling GPL'd software.


Ok ive read this thread a long time back so im not up to date with the current discussion but selling GPL software is perfectly legal as long as you provide source under the terms of the GPL to those who you give the binaries. So i hope your problem is not with GPL software being sold its part of the point of the GPL you have the right to do almost anything you want provided you provide your users with the same right.


The beauty of this idea is that we use the same sneeky 'borderline' legallity that they do:sly:. But it's only possible with te power of this community.

All you need is an HTML page on your PC that points to the domainname to be 'attacked' that continuously refreshes itself (this can be accomplished with a very simple javascript). The effect is the same as browsing to the domain and continiously clicking on the refresh button and therefore it's _legal_ ;). The PC itself won't use any bandwith to speak of and also use hardly any cpu cycles.



Except you are TRYING to cause a DOS so you are doing something illegal. if you pressed that refresh button a lot by hand to try to cause a DOS it would still be illegal (and your finger would hurt :) )


BTW, AFAIK I don't brake any forum rules with with this post (I sure hope I don't), but if I do I apologise in advance.


If it doesn't then thats an error in the rules that needs to be corrected IMO.

DaveEL

[Refthoom]

Hi DaveEL,
Ok ive read this thread a long time back so im not up to date with the current discussion but selling GPL software is perfectly legal as long as you provide source under the terms of the GPL to those who you give the binaries. So i hope your problem is not with GPL software being sold its part of the point of the GPL you have the right to do almost anything you want provided you provide your users with the same right.No I'm certainly not against GPL software being sold. Im talking about people who alter the source slightly to mask it being GPL and then sell as their own, without sources. And those that sell as their own under a different name without altering the source but who also don't say it's GPL a/o don't provide the source code.Except you are TRYING to cause a DOS so you are doing something illegal. if you pressed that refresh button a lot by hand to try to cause a DOS it would still be illegal (and your finger would hurt) OK, I think I see your point. But for the sake of argument, lets explore this a little further. Requesting a page from a webserver is legal, even if I do it a lot of times (and yes, my finger would hurt:D ). The illegality IMO lies in the intrusion of computers by software without consent of the owner, as in the ddos's are usually done. In the proposed way this doesn't happen so logically it's legal. Doing so and causing a server to be unreachable might be conceived as threatening or harmfull to a business. On the other hand, nothing's realy broken and the business that suffers in this case consists of 'bad guys'. Seeing they are braking the law themselves, I don't see them running to the courts. That's why I called it 'borderline'.If it doesn't then thats an error in the rules that needs to be corrected IMO. I suppose you're right in the sense that it's not 'nice' to use a forum to invite members to start a ddos, but remember these are not nice people we're talking about. However, should the rules change, then delete this post. I like being able to vent my ideas here but always within the rules. Even if they change ;)

[Wilbert]

@Refthoom,
No I'm certainly not against GPL software being sold. Im talking about people who alter the source slightly to mask it being GPL and then sell as their own, without sources. And those that sell as their own under a different name without altering the source but who also don't say it's GPL a/o don't provide the source code.
The point is that the sources are included (but hidden a bit), implying that they are doing nothing illegal.

The illegality IMO lies in the intrusion of computers by software without consent of the owner, as in the ddos's are usually done. In the proposed way this doesn't happen so logically it's legal. Doing so and causing a server to be unreachable might be conceived as threatening or harmfull to a business.
That's exactly why we discourage it, even _if_ they do something illegal.

OK, I think I see your point. But for the sake of argument, lets explore this a little further.
I suggest we don't explore it further ...

[Refthoom]

I suggest we don't explore it further ... OK, let's not. And if you really think this thread shouldn't be here, please delete it. Thanks for your thoughts.

EDIT: Sorry, I mean delete my posts, not the thread.

[DaveEL]

Originally posted by Refthoom
Hi DaveEL,
OK, I think I see your point. But for the sake of argument, lets explore this a little further. Requesting a page from a webserver is legal, even if I do it a lot of times (and yes, my finger would hurt:D ). The illegality IMO lies in the intrusion of computers by software without consent of the owner, as in the ddos's are usually done. In the proposed way this doesn't happen so logically it's legal.

Nope. DOS attack is just that denial of service its not about breaking into a computer. It is about DENIAL OF SERVICE, stopping someone using the computer.

Doing so and causing a server to be unreachable might be conceived as threatening or harmfull to a business. On the other hand, nothing's realy broken and the business that suffers in this case consists of 'bad guys'.

It is harmfull to them. Morals of the company don't matter what YOUR suggesting we do is wrong (whatever your morals on the issue its legally wrong.)

Seeing they are braking the law themselves, I don't see them running to the courts. That's why I called it 'borderline'.

Rememeber the GPL is not legally tested, what they are doing may not even be illegal.

Edit: Oh so they do bundle the source in which case they are doing nothing wrong legally even if the GPL does stand up in court.

I suppose you're right in the sense that it's not 'nice' to use a forum to invite members to start a ddos, but remember these are not nice people we're talking about.
So cos they are bad we should be?

DaveEL

[Refthoom]

Hi DaveEL,
First of all, the point's taken. The reason I brought the idea up in this thread was that I saw a lot of opinions but little ideas to actually do something about it. And I wanted to do something about it. I mean, isn't that the purpose of a forum? To come up with and exchange ideas, to discuss and improve them and do something with them? Ideas followed by action, _within_ legal boundries of course. I hoped that would happen here but unfortunately it didn't.

And just to clarify some things:denial of service its not about breaking into a computerI was referring to the IRC-bots or that sort of software that are placed on people's computers to enable a _distributed_ dos. There's a big difference between a ddos and a dos. what YOUR suggesting we do is wrong You're right. I'm sorry.the GPL is not legally tested I seem to rember that with Vidomi there was some 'test' so to speak. It never made the courts AFAIK if that's what you mean. But it was a fine example to me what you can and can't do.Edit: Oh so they do bundle the source in Nope. I'm talking about the category that doesn't bundle the source and no reference whatsoever to the original author or software. The thread is quite long by now so maybe these are gone by now. If that's the case no action's needed and my point (and I believe this thread) can be closed.So cos they are bad we should be? Now that's a deep thought. I guess that's a question going much further than this topic and even this forum. And I think discussing it here would be like the discussions on Iraq which are banned (and rightly so).

Although I think my intentions were good, you are right that it's never good to invite someone else to do something wrong. Not so much for the act itself being right or wrong which can be debated, but for the fact of trying to persuade someone else to stoop to my level ;) So I'm sorry for bringing it up. I can only hope this has been educational to someone.

[DaveEL]

Originally posted by Refthoom

And just to clarify some things:I was referring to the IRC-bots or that sort of software that are placed on people's computers to enable a _distributed_ dos. There's a big difference between a ddos and a dos.

Difference between a DOS and a DDOS, DDOS uses lots of machines against one to make it easy to deny service - not really very different and a DDOS is still a DOS. A non distrbuted DOS in general uses some weakness in the software but DDOS don't in general rely on them they just make so many "legitimate" requests that the server can't cope.

What your refering to is a worm which happens to carry a payload that executes a DDOS. The DDOS itself does not break into the computers.


I seem to rember that with Vidomi there was some 'test' so to speak. It never made the courts AFAIK if that's what you mean. But it was a fine example to me what you can and can't do.


The vidomi case caved to community preasure not to legal preasure. Same with the real magic codec (some issues about that remain unresolved). The community said it was wrong and vidomi decided that much bad press in the community was bad for them - the legality of what they were doing is still unknown.

DaveEL

[bilu]

Speaking of rip-off protecting, I still would like an opinion about these posts:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=333600&highlight=source#post333600

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=333628&highlight=source#post333628

Nobody said anything and I think it has its valid points.

Bilu

[Refthoom]

@DaveEL
Exactly what I mean. Only you worded it better :) .

And the 'DDOS uses lots of machines' part is what I meant by intrusion because the worm you speak of doesn't get on all those machines by choice of the owners. BTW, could that be worms with IRC bots 'in' them? I haven't reread the grc article but I seem to remember that it stated the use of IRC-bots?

Wasn't the FSF involved with the Vidomi case? Oh well, maybe my memory's fading, must be the age thing :D :D .

@bilu
Hmm, sounds good. I think your proposal might be a way to circumvent future misuse but not current misuse. And many applications build on previous sources so at some point you'd get mixed sources, partly old-gpl and partly new-gpl so to speak. Also, what would you do if someone 'illegaly' sold the source they obtained through this way? How would you find out and how would you veryfi who's the bad guy? I think these 2 points are the first to be resolved before such thing could work.

Do you have maybe a solution to fit into your proposal?

[bilu]

I think good models are already used in not-open-source-but-open-standard development of new tecnologies like Symbian for example.

I subscribed at Nokia page and received development tools and documentation for free. Of course it is as hard for them as for us to know when someone sells your source.

But I think the key here is specifying your need for source: besides subscribing you would need to request access to the different parts of the software with a proper justification.

We would then know who had access to what part of the source. Of course both "moderators" and hosting machines would need to be trustful security-wise.

But then I also like the completely different BSD perspective: nobody can stop us from doing better software. If they steal it by improving and not giving something back, we'll focus on doing something even better and open instead of loosing energies crying in rage.

And just look how organized and academic the BSD communities are :)
There's a lot of arrogance around, such as in Linux, but products are more coherent and well documented. And they get used in getting better commercial products, like what happened to Apple, who couldn't afford bad press from stealing their OS, so they give back what they can.

So the world gets better with our efforts, even when the world doesn't give back :)


Bilu

[dragongodz]

i think some things need clarifying.
there are 2 typs of rip-off.
1. is selling a guide and bundling freeware programs(and no the source is not usually included but maybe available on their ftp). the rip-off factor comes from the fact that its is not clearly stated you are buying the guide. i have had plenty of emails from people thinking they bought the programs.
2. is ones that change some text and maybe rearrange the gui(or add a new one) and then sell that as their own creation.

while a new liscence is a good idea the current GPL does not allow holding back the source code. so if we wanted to release DVDx(as example) without the source then it would have to be rewritten without using any other GPL code. also if we wanted to make it only available by request then we are suposed to guarentee that it will be available for 3 years from us.

[xplatinum]

http://www.exdim.com/20022/

Ripoff DVDx and TMPGenc

[TerryHau]

Can someone explain to me what this post is about?
I'm completely lost.
I was searching for info on this program called DVDx.

So is it bad ? or something?

[dragongodz]

this post is about programs such as DVDx and/or people being ripped off.

that doesnt mean ripped off by DVDx but some companies sell a guide plus ree software(including DVDx) that it is unclear to the customer they are buying just the guide. that is they think they are buying the software. the other rippoff is opensource programs such as DVDx being used by companies changing the gui and then selling it as their own.

i know this is a pretty long thread but please try to read the first few pages and you should get some idea of what we are talking about.

so is DVDx bad or something ? maybe i am biased but i think its pretty good(yes there are bugs etc but we are working on them). i mean it cant be too bad if its one of the most highly ripped off pieces of software can it ? :)

[Movie Maniac®]

Hi, look at this screenshots

http://www.mad-soft.info/adv142/?broth

one seems to be taken from DVDx and the other from TmpegEnc.

Bye

P.S. I received this link in my mailbox (spam!!!), and they call it Easy DVD KIT

[Wilbert]

I notified the people of dvdx and TMPGEnc about this. I will keep you informed ...

[Wilbert]

I received a reaction of the TMPGEnc guys:


This is effectively TMPGEnc, and we never authorized this scam to sell our product. The best you can do is to ignore them and tell your friends not to buy this product (wich is a set of freeware in fact).

[Movie Maniac®]

Ok

I'll do it for sure.

Anyhow, let me give a suggestion.
I think that the best thing that can be done, is to create a sort of database of this kind of softwares, and put it online, so that it can be linked from any site who discuss about ripping etc.
By this way people who own sites and trust in the free software politic, like I do, can aware their users and direct them to the database, so that they can have an idea of what they're going to buy, or simply signal fraudulent softwares they have seen.

I think that a resource (a kind of public black list) like this would be very appreciated by everyone, from Software writers to Software users.

Bye