Distribute DivX : legal problem with DivxNetworks

[moua]

I made DivxLight ( www.divxlight.com ),
It's the original DivX decoder (the .ax) in a simple installer.

It's less than 250KB, i made it for thoses who whant the original decoder without downloading the big 5MB pack on divx.com (especially for 56k users or fit the codec with movies on cd).

But i recently received this email :( :

Hi. We just became aware of your "DivXLight" installer linked to on
divxlight.com.

For a variety of reasons, we don't give permission for our DivX software to
be redistributed on third party sites, and we certainly don't allow others
to repackage our codecs in other installers, as you have done.

As a courtesy, I am writing to you directly to ask you to remove the
"DivXLight" installer from divxlight.com and any other location you have it
posted, and once removed, to not ever redistribute it again.

Please respond to me by 8 April 2004 and confirm that you have removed the
"DivXLight" installer and will not publicly redistribute it in the future.
If I don't hear from you by that time, we will contact your ISP and ask that
the download be removed due to copyright infringement.


Do you have any suggestion to leave my "pack" online ? (for the moment it's offline).

The DivX codec is on doom9, how can you do (about DivxNetworks) ?

[BoNz1]

It would be nice if the DivX package was smaller, heck I remember when it was ~ 700kb but that is not the point. The point is you are simply not allowed to do this kind of thing. If you want to point people towards a smaller decoder that can decode a lot more things than the DivX decoder point them in the direction of ffdshow.

[moua]

But is it as good (and simple) as Original DivX codec ?
And will it fit on less than 250 KB (with compression + ~40KB for installer) ?

[avih]

hi moua and welcome to the forum.
pls let me extend my 'welcome' and double strike you for rule 6.

you're distributing someone's else content without permission, beeing ask kindefully to remove the copyright infringing download, and yet, u seek ways to circumvent it, and come to THIS forum for some advice on this matter.

tsk tsk tsk. wrong place. have a nice day.

avih

[moua]

Thanks for your welcome.

Look at my website, it precisely removed the codec for this problem ;)

But apparently i can't leave it anymore :(

I will (try to) make a light ffdshow download.

[avih]

Originally posted by moua
Thanks for your welcome.
I will (try to) make a light ffdshow download.

good. ffdshow is better for your health ;)

[dimzon]

Oh....
Seems it's time to remove my own NuclearDivX from online :(

2moua
NuclearDivX is my version of Yor DivX Lite (it's litter bigger but contains audiodecoder and some usefull stuff)
I even steal your design from www.divxlight.com (look at http://dimzon541.narod.ru/cp/)

[mf]

I recall codec packs (Nimo?) even bundling DivX along with other codecs. *cough* overreaction from divx.com *cough*
Is it time to remind DXN of divx.ctw.cc, or is it time to start hating DXN for becoming an arrogant corporate company?

[avih]

Originally posted by mf
I recall codec packs (Nimo?) even bundling DivX along with other codecs. *cough* overreaction from divx.com *cough*
Is it time to remind DXN of divx.ctw.cc, or is it time to start hating DXN for becoming an arrogant corporate company? or just move on to xvid ;) vote with your feet.

[mf]

That decision is already behind me for a long time. I use XviD exclusively anyway.

[dimzon]

Originally posted by mf
That decision is already behind me for a long time. I use XviD exclusively anyway.
As seen in my comparision (look at signature) ffdShow decoder is much faster!

[Doom9]

actually, I removed the codec for traffic reasons a while back but I never had any problems with DXN regarding that.. but I also carried the full installer. And I don't recall the GKnot codec pack causing any problems (but there again it's a full installer, including the adware).

And the Nemo pack only contains DivX4, not DivX5.

[mf]

Originally posted by dimzon
As seen in my comparision (look at signature) ffdShow decoder is much faster!
I meant for encoding actually, XviD decoder lacks features. I use ffdshow for decoding.

[Tuning]

Tired of downloading more than 5 MegaBytes to read DivX movies ?
The DivX codec don't fit on your CD with your 700MB movie ?

Actually there is no need of DivX decoder for watching DivX movies. Simply use XviD decoder and set to decode DivX. So the point is you may ask XviD developers for allowing XviD decoder distribution and create the package.

btw, divx3 is not supported by XviD decoder.:o

[SeeMoreDigital]

Yes, I'm a bit supprised at DXN for acting like this. I mean it's not like your giving away the encoder.

I guess they are pissed because if people install either DivxLight or NuclearDivX people are able to play DivX (and all manor of other Mpeg4 video streams) via any DirectShow based media player, instead of using DivX's own 'non' DirectShow media player!

At least XviD's decoder is DirectShow (and does a much better job if you ask me) and it's only 167KB!

Cheers

[Bez]

Hey guys. This is Bez from DXN. I wrote the email that moua so thoughtfully posted at the beginning of this thread. (He still hasn't replied to me directly in email, btw.)

It's as simple as this: we develop the DivX and DivX Pro codecs, and we provide the codecs to everyone at no cost for personal use. (And yes, I know the non-paid version of DivX Pro includes adware, but it's still "no cost." The choice is yours.)

We've also set up a global content delivery network so everyone around the world can get decent download performance.

All we ask in return is that you don't take the software and mirror it on your own server. We create the software, and I think asking people to link to http://www.divx.com/divx/ instead of hosting the download themselves is a reasonable thing to ask.

If you think that makes us bad people, so be it. But I certainly don't see it that way. And I think if you were a member of the team here, you'd feel the same way.

(BTW, I appreciate the people in this thread who've supported our position.)

I'll follow up with moua in a separate email.

:bez

[Ryokurin]

well, if you think about it it could be similar to how Nvidia once had beef with the nvidia versions of the 'omega' enhanced drivers. It wasnt that it was being repackaged is that people mistook the drivers as official and started to hound them for issues with it.

However, Im sure however if you read their terms they dont allow repackageing at all anyways, and its not because they want you to use their player as you can remove that anyways. Look at it this way. what if to say someone packages spyware or a worm in it and then word gets out that the package is tainted. it takes nothing to turn that around to that the official divx package has viruses online.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hi Bez,

Thanks for responding so promptly.

Given that there seems to be an interest in providing 'unofficial' DivX DirectShow encoders, how about issuing an 'official' one. Maybe with some nice additional bells and whistles!

Cheers

[Bez]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Hi Bez,

Thanks for responding so promptly.

Given that there seems to be an interest in providing 'unofficial' DivX DirectShow encoders, how about issuing an 'official' one. Maybe with some nice additional bells and whistles!


Heh. Believe me, we have violent debates about this on a daily basis. :-)

:bez

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Bez
Heh. Believe me, we have violent debates about this on a daily basis. That be a 'no' then!

[DigitAl56K]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
That be a 'no' then!

That depends who you ask and on what day ;)

[moua]

First, for dimzon :
You can do what you want with you website NucearDivx http://dimzon541.narod.ru/cp

You can use any part of www.divxlight.com , i am not DXN and i will not force you to put it offline, but try to my more creative about your website ;) (my website is just 5 text lines...).

Bez :
I did't respond to you because i did't know what to do, but as you can see, the decoder is not online anymore.

My wish is not to harm you, i made divxlight just to put your decoder on CD, and BTW, make a very low size container for 56K users.
But i uderstand your position about this.

For all others :

What is your advice for "divxlight" ?
ffdshow appear "very" big, about 1,4MB.
Maybe should i use XviD (which one ? koepi, or nic's version ?) + Divx 3.11.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by DigitAl56K
That depends who you ask and on what day ;) Hi Alastair,

Have you moved? I could have sworn you were in Scotland!


>moua,

Don't forget about Nero's DirectShow filter. This can decode Mpeg1 and 2 too... And it zips to just 260KB!


Cheers

[DigitAl56K]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Hi Alastair,
Have you moved? I could have sworn you were in Scotland!


I've been out here in sunny San Diego since early February working for DXN. I'm managing the DivX Codec for Windows now, so expect good things :)

[SiXXGuNNZ]

I don't understand why DXN doesn't release a decoder only release for 56k and putting the codec on cd's with the movie

[mf]

@Bez
It's not about "all we ask is this", cause that sounds real nice and all, but it's about the little freedom in the A/V community there is, which is not nice to shoot down. The very same freedom that spawned DivX itself (hence my "remind of divx.ctw.cc" remark). I could compare you with Microsoft for a cease and desist letter, but even Microsoft never did that towards DivX (or at least in my knowledge). See the bright side of it, you really won't get any harm from an extra compact installer hosted elsewhere. If divx.com doesn't host a package like it, someone else will. Divx.com can also assert their position and make a tiny installer themselves. But in the end, it's letting go of the little things that make an authority loved. A good police officer will not charge me for taking a shortcut over the sidewalk on bicycle, though it is a traffic offense by law. There's more important things to worry about. Codecs have always been messed about with, repackaged, and bundled. If someone chooses to do that with DivX, feel honored instead. (After all, it does display the darned DivX logo in the bottom right per default, repackaged or not ;))

[avih]

Originally posted by mf
@Bez
It's not about "all we ask is this", cause that sounds real nice and all, but it's about the little freedom in the A/V community there is, which is not nice to shoot down. The very same freedom that spawned DivX itself (hence my "remind of divx.ctw.cc" remark). I could compare you with Microsoft for a cease and desist letter, but even Microsoft never did that towards DivX (or at least in my knowledge). See the bright side of it, you really won't get any harm from an extra compact installer hosted elsewhere. If divx.com doesn't host a package like it, someone else will. Divx.com can also assert their position and make a tiny installer themselves. But in the end, it's letting go of the little things that make an authority loved. A good police officer will not charge me for taking a shortcut over the sidewalk on bicycle, though it is a traffic offense by law. There's more important things to worry about. Codecs have always been messed about with, repackaged, and bundled. If someone chooses to do that with DivX, feel honored instead. (After all, it does display the darned DivX logo in the bottom right per default, repackaged or not ;)) :goodpost:

[dimzon]

Originally posted by moua
For all others :

What is your advice for "divxlight" ?
ffdshow appear "very" big, about 1,4MB.
Maybe should i use XviD (which one ? koepi, or nic's version ?) + Divx 3.11. [/B]
Maybe just <R6 violation>

[BetaBoy]

/me wonders if this all just leading up to a 'good guy' image change of heart for DXN to not use spyware in an upcoming version of the DivX Codec Distribution?

From a business perspective this would be a logical step for them... as they are now licensing the decoder more often (hence more $$$) and that a move like this would improve their image in the community. Something that imho they need and have substantially lost, even with their continued growth.

----
Dan "BetaBoy" Marlin
Founder CoreCodec

[Jordan "L0g05" Greenhall]

I am coming late to this thread - what is the story here?

[BetaBoy]

Jordan... I was just thinking out loud on how something like a 'light' version )w/o adware) that 'moua' had posted might be beneficial at this point for DivX/DivXNetworks. Though only you and the DXN Team are the ones to make that call, it really seems like the 'next level' for DivX at this point.

Also in thinking in the near term... with Windows XP SP2 and it's dynamic ability to notify and block outbound port calls, block pop-up windows, disable activex installs and the ever growing popularity of spyware blocking software (look at download.com's top 5 stats).... I think the business of Adware (and the 'perception' on how bad it is) maybe slowly coming to an end. How soon? who knows... but why be the 'Adware Poster Boys' that everybody points too if you can avoid it, but look like Heroes for 'seeing the light' and removing it instead?!

----
Dan "BetaBoy" Marlin
Founder CoreCodec

[mf]

I don't think the problem lies in the adware. As Bez said, there's a DivX5 Standard without adware, your choice to install Pro or not. That said, a DivX5 Light (same version as Standard but decoding only) might indeed be nice.

[Jordan "L0g05" Greenhall]

Sorry - I'm not at all familiar with the DivX lite idea - give me more . . .

We agree that adware sucks. Once you get on the crack it is hard to get off (for a lot of reasons). But we are certainly thinking about ways to break the habit in the short term.

J

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by Jordan "L0g05" Greenhall
Sorry - I'm not at all familiar with the DivX lite idea - give me more . . . Originally posted by mf
"same version as Standard but decoding only"

[Jordan "L0g05" Greenhall]

So the value is just that it is a smaller download? When you are pretty much going to be downloading 500MB movies - why would a couple MB savings on the codec download be important? Are many people out there on 56k modems getting content on CD? And if so - why not just include the decoder/player on the CD with the movie?

[Soulhunter]

I have one of this fu*kn 56k modems, so I dont download 500MB movies... :P

But sometimes I need to put decoder(s) on the CD/DVD when I lend them friends etc. !!!


Bye

[Jordan "L0g05" Greenhall]

Dude - upgrade to broadband! Bittorrent is great.

Seriously - how many unfortunates like you and your crew are out there? I have to admit that we live in some rarified air out here - my house has broadband, an 802.11(g) network, two KISS network DVD players, and a dedicated terabyte home server. So maybe I'm a bit out of touch!

J

[Soulhunter]

Yeah, I should stop spending my money for movies, music and software... Instead I should upgrade to broadband n' download all this stuff @ eDonkey for free! And yes, lot ppl of my "crew" have broadband, so I have access to the amazing world of broadband as well. But I use it mainly to download updates, patches, drivers, and sometimes also fansubs !!!


EDIT: Now I have broadband... :P


Bye

[avih]

Originally posted by Jordan "L0g05" Greenhall
Dude - upgrade to broadband! Bittorrent is great.

Seriously - how many unfortunates like you and your crew are out there? I have to admit that we live in some rarified air out here - my house has broadband, an 802.11(g) network, two KISS network DVD players, and a dedicated terabyte home server. So maybe I'm a bit out of touch!

J

i'm one of those unfortunates to be on a modem too. i believe there are many more. i don't know the latest stats, but out of pure hunch i'd say at least 25%-30%. you're welcome to come up with better stats though.

regardless, eventhough i only use xvid, i think that a light decoder only would be usefull for your users. afterall, it's all about making the most out of fixed cd space.

my $0.02

avih

[mf]

Originally posted by Jordan "L0g05" Greenhall
Are many people out there on 56k modems getting content on CD? And if so - why not just include the decoder/player on the CD with the movie?
That's what divxlight was for. Until you killed it. :p DivXlight / DivX Lite is really perfect for CDs - it has filters necessary for playback, period. No unnecessary things. It's nice for 56k but also for bundling on movie CDs.

[Jordan "L0g05" Greenhall]

I didn't kill it. I don't kill projects - I just break a few kneecaps now and then :devil:

OK, I get it. Good idea - I'll talk with Bez and DigitAL.

J

[mf]

Blame English for having the exact same grammar form for plural "you" as for single "you".

[dimzon]

Any news about DivX Lite?

[cyberVera]

DivX Networks, funny people you are!

to moua:

Thank you very much for your decoder!!!
And thank you for lighting one of the most important issues nowadays!
"Do you have any suggestion to leave my "pack" online ?"
You don't need any suggestions. You are a free man. And constitutionally you are free to do what you want. Nobody will harm you. All are very brave in the web, but wear glasses in real life :-)
Anyway, concept of software and publishing (content, entertainment) business regarding ownership and copyright come into direct contradiction with social concepts. Doom9 is crying for that in his everyday news.
Business is successful when it contents human demands. And if millions of people have a necessity in small decoder, then let them not deceive you by preaching plane and banal notations about the benefits of washing your hands before your eat. Better them make such distributive.
DivX boys are not that fluffy at all. Firstly they had stollen Microsoft's work, everted it, attached a popular divx label to it, waited for people to start associate this ability of compressing a DVD into single CD with divx, and then proclaimed themselves as world phenomena. DivX is popular not because of DivX "from scratch" but due to Microsoft MPEG4 v3 codec.


to avih:

Speaking about one of the rules of the forum, do not forget about the other rules. Rules of politeness and honour. I think you almost humiliated the member. Such posts like "good. ffdshow is better for your health" (as well as all the other) added nothing to discussion of the thread. Anyway, keep such words for you girl, not for us.

to Bez:

How are you going to prosecute that man? Do not forget what the Web is, and your rights to it. Also do not forget about different laws in different countries. For example Russia is not that tolerant to such accusers like you, which try to dictate people what to do in the Web.

I own a pc trading company in my city. In order to add some value to our buyers, we include a CD with more than 100 freewares from the web with every pc being sold, to save buyers' time for searching and downloading it (freeware is never free for a downloading man!). When starting that 3 years ago, we wrote to every company for permission to do that. ALL of them were not against at all, including Microsoft for their ebook Reader, Zone Labs for their ZoneAlarm, and so on. The only company which was against that, was (guess) DivX! If you want I can post that long and stupid correspondence with demands for 5000$ fee for a freeware codec/player bundle (not content, just webdownload).

to Jordan:

It seems DivX management has a lot of time to hang in forums asking what divx lite is :-)
I use modem. So what? I own a villa with 2 cars in garage and 5 computers in 4 rooms, and still I use modem. I like it. It is anonimous and more safe for intrusion. Anyway, I would like to see your efforts trying to get broadband in 75% of the world's countries to your private appartment.

Sorry for anger, just can not stand to see one man being attacked by a bang for nothing.

[jggimi]

cyberVera:4) Be nice to each other and respect the moderator. Profanity and insults will not be tolerated. If you have a problem with another member turn to the respective moderator and if the moderator can't help you send a private message to Doom9.In my opinion, you have not followed this rule. Its one of our most important.

I understand that English is not your birth language. Still, you have been rude, both to another moderator, and to another member. You did not address your business dealings privately, and aired them here in public, instead.

Dimzon posted his query for an update after a year had gone by, by the way. It was merely a fair request for an update, should any member who happens to work with/for DivXNetworks care to respond. This isn't their forum, and they don't have to be here... they find enough value to remain, and it sometimes suprises me.

If you don't like the company, its product, or its policies, then by all means, use something else.

Struck for a flaming Rule 4 violation.

[DigitAl56K]

Alrighty then! Where to begin..

Right now we aren't planning to release a DivX Lite package. It's something that I recognize there is demand for, but positioning it is difficult.

When someone arrives at the world of DivX, whether they're simply downloading movies from DivX.com, looking for information on Certified, devices, downloading our free bundles, or downloading a registered version, we consider that person a DivX customer - i.e. not necessarily someone who contributes to us financially but someone we serve in some way or another.

We want DivX to become more than just "some codec you download off the Internet" to our customers. In fact, we've spent the last 5 years building a website, building an ecosystem involving hardware players, video-on demand services, hardware encoders, licensed software partners, and so on. All of this contributes towards our ultimate goal: The DivX experience.

Now, the obvious point you are going to argue is that if people want a small download of just the decoder then it would be a good experience to give them that. However, we would like people to come to DivX.com to learn about the technologies they're downloading. We hope that by doing so not only will they see the true value in DivX and digital media, but perhaps go on to learn about creating content and educating others. When people install DivX software it's important to us that they see our license agreement, that there are no hidden programs bundled in with the installation, that there are ways to easily remove the software if they choose, and so on. You can think of us as keepers of the DivX experience, if you like. Part of that experience also involves what software is included in each of our bundles, and how those bundles are broken down. For example, one reason we might not distribute the DirectShow decoder on its own is because you could spend the next year downloading movies from your friends and gain no real understanding about what DivX is or how you are using it. While that maybe serves your personal purpose, we'd like to think that learning a little about the technology you're using will inspire you to use it yourself.

Believe us, no decision we make is an easy one. I understand that some people do want a "DivX Lite" bundle. We can't please all of the people all of the time, although sometimes we do change our stance on certain issue depending on the feedback we get - and to your point jggimi one of the main reasons we do like to participate here on Doom9 is to contribute back to the community, and listening to your feedback is a huge part of that. Looking back it's clear to see that we've had some great feedback, and some not so great feedback, but in the end we do our best to take your views onboard. We certainly aren't trying to ignore "DivX Lite" as a concept, but for the short term it doesn't fit our goals.

You may now proceed to curse at us. Err..provide feedback ;)

-Al