What is Digg?38 Comments
- Xuerian, on 05/06/2008, -0/+52At least it's a nice change of pace for the company to call themselves on it.
- WCL23, on 05/06/2008, -0/+29At least they had the decency to apologise. Most companies would have just tried to plough through their mistake by insisting they were right.
- Trixrox, on 05/06/2008, -0/+17Too many laws is a problem, no one understands all of them. I do not know a solution to this, and I do not even know if there is a good one, but no one understands them. DMCA has good merit, hurts consumers in some respects though. It is important for a developer to be protected from unlawful acts involving their products, but it isn't fair to consumers that breaking copy protection for DVDs is illegal, even to make a legal backup (we all do it anyways ;) ).
Things are just too complicated, and too easily abused. - Rikkochet, on 05/06/2008, -0/+15Oh, look, it was the lawyers all along... At least someone there was smart enough to stand up to their legal counsel and admit their bad.
- inactive, on 08/26/2008, -0/+11Never heard of CoreAVC before (or the Linux compatibility wrapper). Awesome publicity stunt!
EDIT: Thomaschaaf beat me to it. - Thomaschaaf, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11I didn't even know them before that.. now I do and even keep them in my head as an okay company.. good marketing!
- pak314, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8The Bush approach would be to accidentally delete you email servers and backups.
- SpongeBad, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10Actually, I don't see where the DMCA has good merit. The fair use laws that have been in place for a very long time have always done a decent job of protecting copyrighted content, and are fairly standard around the world. All the DMCA does is encourage the people and companies who are going to reverse-engineer things like copy protection to do so from outside the US, thus costing the US economy jobs.
Take a look at Slysoft for a prime example. The DMCA hasn't stopped them from cracking the DRM on HD DVD and Blu-ray, all it has done is ensure that nobody in the US can develop a product to compete with Slysoft. - employeeno5, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7"A victory for Upfish!"
- Atomic1fire, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5It's not every day that a company not only steps up to a mistake
But actively helps linux users in the process - twiztidsinz, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5They ARE working with the project.
- VancouverDave, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5Is there a penalty for filing a fraudulent takedown notice, or can anyone go ahead and do that?
It was nice of them to admit it and all, but isn't some damage already done? - foofightrs777, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Don't forget about calling anyone who disagrees with you "terrorist".
- cawpin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4CoreAVC doesn't break ANY laws. It is simply a translation layer between the codec and the rest of the OS. They weren't distributing anything the CoreCodec owned.
- rantenki, on 05/06/2008, -4/+6Sure; but who in their right mind would develop an app that uses this software if you are likely to get a DMCA out of the deal?
I would personally be likely to avoid speccing CoreAVC if I was writing a transcoding app, or building a media delivery platform until I got some kind of legal assurances that the hammer wouldn't get dropped on me. A simple "We are going to try and not be as evil anymore" is not sufficient. - kirado4, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2there's needs to be as harsh penalties for issuing fraudulent take down notices as there are for copyright infringement..
so far the law for copyright infringement is like being falsely accused of rape.. turns into a he said she said.. and you all know the judge will listen more to the "she", "she" being the lying RIAA or whoever.. (this metaphor ignores all other forms or rape which are usually ignored by feminists the media and the justice system eg. woman-woman,man-man,woman-man, man-woman, animal etc.. you get the point!!) - inactive, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2and then choke on a pretzel.
- gcnaddict, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2I'm surprised you didn't know them before that. Thay make what is currently considered the most efficient h.264 decoder (even more efficient than avivo and purevideo).
- stix213, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Looks like an honest mistake and some crazies in their legal department. Good for them for coming out with the apology.
- NormalVisual, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Go read the original complaint before you go patting them on the back too hard.
- inactive, on 08/26/2008, -0/+1SCO FTL!
- inactive, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Too bad we even have these stupid "questionable lawsuits" in the first place eh? I think often when these things occur it is either because the companies are just too stupid to research what they are going after in the first place, or because they think they can trick some jury into thinking their way (and that actually has been pulled off before). At least this company had the decency to check it out (even though it was after they made the big fuss in the first place).
- bincoder, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1a lawsuit would seem an appropriate response. It's a shame or a sham? When anyone gets a loose hair up their .... fills out a paper, and then takes absolute control of the interwebs. If the price for being wrong were a few million dollars, less 'errors' would happen. Kinda like the power for any citizen to arrest another. You can do it, but you better be very very right, otherwise, you get sued, loose everything you own and prolly go to prison for awhile.
- inactive, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I don't really know what damage has been done but it is ultimately up to the developers and/or google. These whiny "you could have potentially hurt me" lawsuits are hurtful and abusive to the justice system in my opinion.
Sorry, meant to reply to Dave. - NormalVisual, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Google did exactly what they were supposed to do as per the law.
- p0tent1al, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2You know, some of this fault should fall on Google for blindly complying with a DMCA takedown. What's to stop Google from complying with any future unfounded DMCA takedowns? Does this mean any controversial or important sites shouldn't be hosted with Google in the future?
I mean we all love Google, but if any other company made this mistake, they would be taking WAY more heat for this than Google is. - djuniah, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2truthfully, i'm kinda glad that all these shenanigans happened because otherwise, i probably would not have known about coreavc-for-linux and I have been looking for a coreavc linux compatability layer for a while now. but since there was no news on it in a VERY long time, i had given up waiting/looking. I loved it in windows but since i made "the switch" my old lappy (1.6Ghz single core) couldn't play HD video without rebooting into windows. Cant wait to compile it and give it a shot!
- inactive, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Didn't they also invent the flux capacitor?
- edvas, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3Perhaps CoreCodec engineered the whole situation, in order to gain popularity and look like the good guys (after pulling a 180).
- NormalVisual, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0It would have been better if the CEO had the decency to not lie in the original DMCA notice in the first place.
- CaptainTrav, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Too bad more questionable lawsuits don't end this way.
- NormalVisual, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1They DID NOT make a mistake. Read the damn DMCA complaint itself - the CEO out and out lied.
From the DMCA complaint: "We have directly verified by downloading the file from the Site provided by Google Inc. that the file does include CoreCodec's copyrighted Software." - NormalVisual, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1They're an okay company because they apologized after their CEO lied on a legal document to get a web site shut down and knew he could be on the hook for some serious penalties if the other party decided to take it to court?
- ddrstreak, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1They made a mistake, called themselves on it, and then go on to say that they want to assist the developer with the project. What damage was done besides the initial error?
- newbill123, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2An apology is nice, but they should put their money where their mouth is.
A legal wrapper for their legally purchased product means more sales in their pocket so It seems obvious that they benefit from progress on this open source project.
As nice as an apology is in spirit, providing knowledge or funding to the project would be a great way to get it restarted. - roosterjm2k2, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1We call that the "Bush Approach" these days...
- nickert0n, on 05/06/2008, -8/+1Stupid ***** pointless story
- BXRWXR, on 05/06/2008, -12/+3Google's reply?
You be illin'.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is