[FFmpeg-devel] Fw: ffmpeg GPL violation
Thu Oct 2 22:06:26 CEST 2008
--- On Mon, 29/9/08, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> From: Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Fw: ffmpeg GPL violation
> To: "FFmpeg development discussions and patches" <ffmpeg-devel at mplayerhq.hu>
> Date: Monday, 29 September, 2008, 2:00 PM
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:37:55AM -0700, Jason
> Garrett-Glaser wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Diego Biurrun
> <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 03:06:05AM +0200, Michael
> Niedermayer wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Just got the following mail and as the author
> refuses to submit it to
> > >> the bug tracker and i dont feel like being
> his secretary i forward it
> > >> here.
> > >
> > > Added to the bug tracker and hall of shame.
> > Out of curiosity, why don't we get a bit more
> aggressive with such
> > violators? I would think, at least in the case of
> American companies
> > hosting violations, that a DMCA takedown notice would
> have a bit more
> > impact than a hall of shame.
> Why just the US? and why would you need the DMCA?
> Any normal ISP should remove content that violates
> copyright, the reason
> simply is if they do not, they might be liable in case of a
> lawsuit. I mean
> their main defense of "not knowing about what is
> hosted on the severs of
> their customers" would not work once they have been
> contacted (preferably by
> snail mail).
> The way i understand it, is that the DMCA has not made
> hosting copyright
> infriging materal more illegal, but instead it has
> clarified that ISPs
> are not liable when they quickly remove infriging content.
> What we lack is a volunteer doing such things ...
> do you volunteer?
> If someone does, i suggest that the exact wording of such
> mails should be
> discussed first.
> We could create a private ffmpeg-legal ML but then i guess
> we could just
> discuss it here as well.
> They should at least contain IMHO
> * A clear unambious request of what to remove
> * A clear unambious and verifyable proof that the material
> our copyright
> * A clear unambious statement that we are the copyright
> holders of it
> Either way, we should start sending out such mails to the
> long time infrigers
> on the tracker before the more recent ones.
Just passing through the "Hall Of Shame" on ffmpeg's website, and found Voltaic's website, and this little snippet on this page: http://shedworx.com/volmac-legal
"VoltaicHD for Mac is copyright Systemic Pty Ltd.
VoltaicHD for Mac utilises the FFmpeg video application for one part of the conversion process. FFmpeg is used in 'binary' form and the source code of ffmpeg will be provided with the next release of VoltaicHD for Mac.
FFmpeg is a trademark of Fabrice Bellard, originator of the FFmpeg project.
FFmpeg is licensed under the LGPL."
So, should this stay in the Hall of Shame?
PS: I am gonna go through the others on that list and see if they've rectified their violations. :-)
More information about the ffmpeg-devel