XviD is illegal and DivX 3.11 Alpha is legal

[Elias]

I've been posting a little on the VirtualDub forum, after numerous threads, some self-proclaimed omniscient dude claimed that XviD is illegal and DivX 3.11 (yes, the old Micro$oft hack) was in fact, legal, or more legal anyway. I quote: xvid is more illegal than divx311 (no matter what crap you read from doom9 and his crap-writing forum mods), and here's how;
divx311 is just a ms-mpeg4v3 codec put into a container ms didn't want it to end up in.
got it?
totally free video codec (ms gives codecs away for free) in .avi container (originally ms was also putting mpeg4v3 to .avi, and essentially that's what made gej put meg4v3 back to .avi via divx3).Anyone here who knows better than me can confirm this? I've always been under the conception that DivX 3.11 is seriously illegal, and that XviD was a legal solution. I mean, after all, if XviD was illegal, how could it run a site and everything? Could it just be that he's making fun of me or something? Because I seriously find it hard to believe that this is true.

[Teegedeck]

The question is purely academic and hardly worth your breath. DivX3.11 is so outdated that I can only say, really, who cares to argue whether it has been illegal, questionable or OK. People who cared back then just used MS-MPEG4v3 (or was it v2? can't remember) with Nandub and the difference of the result was naught. Same video, different fourcc.

As for XviD, the codec itself cannot be illegal, but if you use it for distribution, public streaming or anything and don't pay MPEG4 royalties, you can make illegal use of it.

[Doom9]

(no matter what crap you read from doom9 and his crap-writing forum mods),That tells you everything you need to know...

[Elias]

Originally posted by Doom9
That tells you everything you need to know... I don't trust that guy for one second.

[Soulhunter]

@ Elias

Just ask this punk for a legislation that proofs his nonsense claims... ;)


Bye

[guada 2]

Hello Soul, it is guada or guada 2 (just a parenthesis) ;)
I'm not dead, just sleepy.

Elias
You must know it that the truth doesn't hide always in the words.
It is not a joke my friend. :)

To soon

[Elias]

Originally posted by Soulhunter
@ Elias

Just ask this punk for a legislation that proofs his nonsense claims... ;)


Bye Seriously, why bother? If he's that much of a stupid idiot to claim such a thing, and be fully serious about it, then you have to wonder where he pulled those "facts" from.

[Andrey]

About divx 3.11.
If it is not simple change in the registry, that renamed msmpeg4v2 (or 3 :) ) to divx 3.11 then there is a good chance that EULA is violated. (remember: you can not dissasembly, nor change the original code).
BTW, if you have "legal" problems - there could be a funny solution: install Divx, it gives you a mpeg-4 license and then use Xvid. :)
(But consult a lawer on the first hand, of course)

[stephanV]

Originally posted by Andrey
BTW, if you have "legal" problems - there could be a funny solution: install Divx, it gives you a mpeg-4 license and then use Xvid. :)
(But consult a lawer on the first hand, of course)

Why do people keep spreading this nonsense? Read your license agreement with DivX. You do not get a license to use MPEG4 from them, you get one to use DivX.

[Elias]

Originally posted by Andrey
About divx 3.11.
If it is not simple change in the registry, that renamed msmpeg4v2 (or 3 :) ) to divx 3.11 then there is a good chance that EULA is violated. (remember: you can not dissasembly, nor change the original code).
BTW, if you have "legal" problems - there could be a funny solution: install Divx, it gives you a mpeg-4 license and then use Xvid. :)
(But consult a lawer on the first hand, of course) I don't have a legal problem with MPEG-4. We were having a conversation, and he claimed XviD more illegal than DivX 3.11... that's all.

[guada 2]

Elias
What is the interest to ask such a question when one knows the answer?.
I always tell to myself when there is something to say better is worth to say it highly and clearly, that slyly or to keep it.

I note that you say it honestly, but no report makes rebound anyone.

One can really discuss on subjects, but when this last stationary already the limits it is not anymore a conversation that is born, but a deep debate that disturbs.
For it, I prefer to hold to your speech: you are right but it is thus.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Elias
I don't have a legal problem with MPEG-4. We were having a conversation, and he claimed XviD more illegal than DivX 3.11... that's all.

Well on that note and in light of recent revalations that WM9/VC-1 was/is illegal what do you think the odds of MSMPEG4 being legal are. And if it wasn't legal either then there is no way for Divx 3.11 to have been legal.

There are however some valid points about Xvid and legality. The Xvid group provides no binaries. It is a source only project. In otherwords totally legit. But they can legally distribute a limited number of binaries etc IIRC. They still don't however. 3rd parties are the ones doing all the distribution. What's more they are all doing it for free. This is more or less analogous to the Lame MP3 encoder. There was an effort at one time to shut down binary distribution of the project. Which was not being done by the actual project. 3rd parties again. The source code was perfectly legal to distribute. Problem was that anyone who had the source could create a binary. And since the source and the binaries are free there is next to nothing to be gained financially from trying to stop it. In fact it could be said it helped poularize the format. Which would be my guess as to why limited binary distribution was included for parts of the MPEG4 suite.

Ok so maybe there are no valid issues with Xvid's legality for the most part. :D The legality issue would only enter in via what you might do with it. Like "are you going to sell Xvid?" or "are you going to produce commecial content with Xvid?". There are some major snags with those two scenarios. But if you are going to use it for your own private use or for your own personal content. Hey who's gonna care? Not likely the MPEG-LA.

[Shinigami-Sama]

Originally posted by Andrey
About divx 3.11.
If it is not simple change in the registry, that renamed msmpeg4v2 (or 3 :) ) to divx 3.11 then there is a good chance that EULA is violated. (remember: you can not dissasembly, nor change the original code).
BTW, if you have "legal" problems - there could be a funny solution: install Divx, it gives you a mpeg-4 license and then use Xvid. :)
(But consult a lawer on the first hand, of course)
has anyone ever come ot check if you;ve modified your windows yet?
or violated hte eula in anyother way?
and if it was illegal I would figure that it would have been brought to light a while ago
but then again mpeg-la may be doign a good job covering it up:rolleyes:

[Cyberman]

It´s not about "who cares", it´s useless to counter with "who cares, there´s no profit made".

DivX 3 was a "hacked" version of MS Mpeg4V3, the FourCC has been changed.

XviD is an implementation of Mpeg4 - a technology that isn´t free.

I seriously doubt it would be legal to use a patented technology and not pay for it - even if you don´t immediately make use of it.

I´d guess both are illegal, though XviD a bit more, as it´s not just a name-change, as DivX is.

@Elias: since when has legality and the ability to run a site anything to do with each other? As long as no one prosecutes, it can be as illegal as it wants, and no one´ll notice.

[Elias]

Originally posted by Cyberman
I´d guess both are illegal, though XviD a bit moreProof please, don't guess ;)

[Sharktooth]

Xvid is not illegal as long as it is distribuited as source code for educational purpouse.
DivX 3.11 was completely illegal coz it was a reverse engineering of a patented codec.

[Elias]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
Xvid is not illegal as long as it is distribuited as source code for educational purpouse.
DivX 3.11 was completely illegal coz it was a reverse engineering of a patented codec. THANK YOU!!!!!11one

I rest my case.

[Teegedeck]

Not forgetting, you really are allowed to distribute a limited number of encoders/decoders free of charge. Now, I wonder what the regulations for self-compiled binaries are? I guess the people who wrote up those terms never thought of the possibility of someone compiling his/her own binary...?

[Elias]

Originally posted by Teegedeck
Not forgetting, you really are allowed to distribute a limited number of encoders/decoders free of charge. Now, I wonder what the regulations for self-compiled binaries are? I guess the people who wrote up those terms never thought of the possibility of someone compiling his/her own binary...? But hey, after all, you're a crap-writing Doom9 forum mod, you don't know anything :P

[Koepi]

Originally posted by Elias
THANK YOU!!!!!11one


That I call "professional trolling" %)

I hope that I just didn't overread the irony/sarcasm-flags in your post above this one...

[Elias]

Originally posted by Koepi
That I call "professional trolling" %)

I hope that I just didn't overread the irony/sarcasm-flags in your post above this one... hehe, well, I was being a little bit ironic, but I really meant thank you there. He was absolutely right.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Cyberman
It�s not about "who cares", it�s useless to counter with "who cares, there�s no profit made".

No not at all in this case. There are indeed cases where such a response would be wholly inadequate. But it just so happens that this is not one of them.

Originally posted by Cyberman
DivX 3 was a "hacked" version of MS Mpeg4V3, the FourCC has been changed.

XviD is an implementation of Mpeg4 - a technology that isn�t free.

I seriously doubt it would be legal to use a patented technology and not pay for it - even if you don�t immediately make use of it.

Totally legal.

Divx3 may have just been a hacked version of MSMPEG4v3 but Microsoft as far as anyone knows never paid to license MSMPEG4. So best case scenario MSMPEG4 is every bit illegal as Xvid. And just because Microsoft is part of the MPEG consortium does not give them the right.

I can take any pattented technology I like and use it however I like save for a few restrictions. If I am going to use it to compete with the pattent holder I must license the pattents. Or if I plan to commercially distribute the product or do a wide spread distribution of the product produced from these technologies I must license them etc. Xvid neither competes or does any sort of binary distribution. Totally legal. As long as you do something for your own personal use pattents don't much apply. Even though Xvid implements pattented methods it has clearly been stated that they are not restricted as source. And if I take said source and compile it for myself it is totally legal. And as I and others have stated the MPEG-LA have made provisions to allow for limited binary distribution as well. 50,000 IIRC. Strictly I think this only applies to the Xvid project itself. But it's not clear that it does not apply to each and every person who takes the source and tweaks/compiles it on their own.

Saying that Xvid is illegal is quite a stretch. Saying that there are some cases where it could not be legally used however is absolutely correct. But not a real issue here.

Originally posted by Cyberman
I�d guess both are illegal, though XviD a bit more, as it�s not just a name-change, as DivX is.

I would have to say just the opposite. Since MS never licensed MPEG4 they have no right to commercially distribute MPEG4. And since Xvid is not commercial in this instance it is totally legal for what we are using it for.

Originally posted by Cyberman
@Elias: since when has legality and the ability to run a site anything to do with each other? As long as no one prosecutes, it can be as illegal as it wants, and no one�ll notice.

Just because you can do something and get away with it does not make it legal. Whether or not you may never get caught it is just nice to know that you don't have to be constantly looking over your shoulder. And in this case no one who has claimed Xvid is illegal can show any solid evidence of this. Simply because it isn't true. Likewise don't believe anyone who tells you that it is legal for everything. It is a grey area. But it is however just fine to use it to make personal backups. ;)

[wertherman]

can take any pattented technology I like and use it however I like save for a few restrictions. If I am going to use it to compete with the pattent holder I must license the pattents. Or if I plan to commercially distribute the product or do a wide spread distribution of the product produced from these technologies I must license them etc. Xvid neither competes or does any sort of binary distribution. Totally legal. As long as you do something for your own personal use pattents don't much apply.

Well, strictly speaking patents give the patent holder a blanket exclusive right to use that patent, and the right to demand that anyone else who uses that patent, either stops using it, dispute the patent in court or agree to a license that allows them limited use of it (possibly involving royalty payments). However, there is nothing illegal about using a patent that for whatever reason the patent holders choose not to enforce (or is unable to). So until the mpeg 4 patent holders start going after any software based implementations of their encoder, there is nothing to worry about (which they won't do as it's far easier to demand payment of off people that are producing hardware that encodes or decodes mpeg 4 content, as they can assume that each device will be used for that purpose and can charge per device sold).

As for which of xvid or divx 3.11 is more illegal, both infringe on patents which are currently not being enforced in the software market, but divx 3.11 also infringes on microsoft's copyright. This without a doubt makes divx 3.11 more illegal.

There is the issue that if the patent holders did approach Microsoft about licensing it's patents, Microsoft would turn around and find a bunch of it's patents that the mpeg 4 group infringed upon and some sort of cross licensing deal would emerge. Which of course, is the biggest problem with software patents in general. Anyway, I digress...