Broadcast 2000 Removed From Public Access 264
VRteach writes: "I see that the developers of the fine multimedia software, Broadcast 2000, have removed their main product from public access. Their web site cites a worry of potential liability." The site says that "the distribution of Broadcast 2000 enhanced to unacceptable levels the risk of an individual experiencing significant financial damage due to the extremely expensive nature of high end video production and the high risk inherent in professional video business marketing." It also says they plan to keep issuing "minor works" for now, and as liability issues are resolved to again release major programs.
Personally... (Score:3, Interesting)
The program was a neat concept, but I was unable to get it working once over the past few years of playing with it. I have 100% compatible hardware for capture.
Liability, why does avery lee still distribute one of the most popular video edditing programs under GLP still then? http://www.virtualdub.org/
I don't understand, and I'm personally very skeptical of this excuse to stop development and pull the program.
Re:WTF?!? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can someone dumb this down a little for me please.
Basically they are saying that by distributing Broadcast 2000, there was an increased amount of risk for someone to do something stupid and mess up their expensive equipment (and sue the software company for their own mistake). It's pure logic...the more people using something, the more likely someone is to do something stupid.
This is the number one rule of computing at its best: CYA, no one else will.
Something more may be going on here (Score:5, Interesting)
Generally, the warranty provisions with which a software maker must be concerned are these three:
Generally, the 2 implied warranties can be disclaimed by reciting the magic disclaimer words. (NOTE: I AM a lawyer and this is NOT legal advice to ANYONE - thus I am not reprinting the magic words here so no one can rely on any supposed "advice" they may claim I am giving.)
What I suspect is happening here (and this is close to pure conjecture) is that the company is spooked by recent lawsuits (i.e. - Napster, DeCSS, Felton, et al.) and decided that it would take the safe route rather than be accused of providing a tool to infringe copyrights in authored works.
Of course this is my opinion alone and is based on current events in the legal world combined with the statements on the Broadcast 2000 website. I may be completely wrong about this. Only the people at Broadcast 2000 can say for sure.
Re:I am not a lawyer, but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The makers of Broadcast 2000 realize the people are ACTUALLY using their software for high-end (that's the "expensive" part) projects. Such users become dependent on Broadcast 2000 and have a lot to lose should the software have serious bug in it.
The developers don't have any legal obligation to fix such a hypothetical bug (well, actually with the DMCA *THEY MAY*), though I am sure they no doubt would - eventually. But this could blow a multi-million dollar deadline for a production house.
The DMCA insists that you always have someone you can sue (the "warrenty" issue).
The biggest problem with this part of the DMCA is that it seeks to hide the fact that computing, by it's nature, is *a risk*. In the Peter G. Neumann sense. The use of ANY technology implies a certain amount of risk/faith - fire resistant gear as a hard example.
The law is being made to hold responsibility beyond what is reasonable in the physical world. Sometimes things don't work out - that's life.
Unfortunately, in the US we would like someone, anyone, to be responsible other than ourselves.
Re:Isn't it GPL'ed? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hopefully there will be enough enthusiasm out there in OSS communityland for a couple of forks to exist. NLE applications will only become more common as computers get more capable, so having a few viable alternatives would be a Good Thing.
Re:I am not a lawyer, but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The DMCA only applies to "consumer" equipment, not "professional" equipment. What's the difference? Nobody knows.
As we have seen in the music production arena over the last couple of decades, as pro equipment gets cheaper there becomes a "prosumer" class of equipment - professional quality, consumer prices.
The DMCA tries to insure that this will never happen with video production. Anything cheap enough to be consumer is automatically limited in terms of the functionality it can offer.
Re:I am not a lawyer, but.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Is there, as yet, a legal precedent for cases such as this?
Sure They Can Be Sued (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone can sue anyone else for anything at any time. All that's needed is a lawyer who will take the case on contingency. Then it doesn't matter whether the suit has any merit at all, because the defendant will still be out the cost of a lawyer just to get the suit thrown out, and the plaintiff has zero risk in many cases. (Fortunately, some states have frivolous lawsuit laws that provide some protection from totally bogus suits)
I think I'll sue them now. I've always wanted to make an expensive video production, and they've taken away my ability to do that - along with all of the money I would have made from the project.
Of course IANAL but IAMANAL
Re:Free Speech Warranty?? (Score:0, Interesting)
Hardly.
Grab a copy from one of several mirrors posted in this story's comments and work on your own fork.
There are people out there who will have the balls to pick this project up where it left off. It's only a matter of time.
Re:Eh? (Score:2, Interesting)
paraphrase: 'By distributing Broadcast 2000, we opened ourselves up to liability from someone who would claim that our software caused him expensive damage. So we stopped distributing it. Mainly because we didn't want to be blamed because somebody else took a stupid risk, used our software in the process, and was relying on attornies to look for anyone except themselves to blame.'
My guess is that someone specifically threatened them with this kind of lawsuit, and they withdrew their software, kind enough to write in a manner identifying that person, without identifying that person. That's the kind of thing that makes me write like that.
Is this real or just an excuse? (Score:2, Interesting)
What is their relationship with Linux Media Labs and Linux Media Arts? Linux Media Labs offers for $599.00 [linuxmedialabs.com] Broadcast for LINUX, "a fully supported LINUX video edit[or]", which looks exactly like Broadcast 2000 to me.
Now, this could very well just be a case of a company taking GPLed software and selling support for it. It's somewhat surprising that they don't mention Heroine Virtual at all, but they're not required to do so. (Last week, a story here about Linux office suites linked to a company that was clearly just selling KOffice... they hadn't even bothered to change the names of the applications in the screenshots!) Cygnus had a profitable and very reputable business doing similar, before being consumed by RedHat.
What's the relationship between these companies?
Inherent, no. In practical terms, yes. (Score:3, Interesting)
For at least a century, these same businesses or their forebears have been funding (one way or another) the development of increasingly business-centric wars. American businesses essentially funded the Bolshevik revolution, and without the prolonged and earnest intervention of some Wall Street big names like Farben, Ford and General Electric, Adolph Hitler's Third Reich wouldn't have got as far as the taxiway.
If world wars are a routine achievement, what hope do you think mere copyright has in comparison?
With a century of momentum and billions of dollars behind them, how are you or I going to stop them?
Our `inalienable rights' may as well be alien rights in the face of such blatant and powerful violations of them.
What about the XCDRoast method? (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand that this software will probably erase my hard drive, kill my pets, make California sink into the Pacific Ocean and the Earth to crash into the sun.
I think a good approach to any bonehead that would sue a Free/Open project is take the ridiculous disclaimer to the ridiculous extreme:
I understand I got this for free and have no expectation that it is fit for any purpose whatsover.
I understand that terrible things are likely to happen if persist in running this software such as permanent damage to system components and loss of data.
I understand that this sequence of prompts is going to look GREAT in court should I be obtuse enough to sue anybody anyway.
I understand that there is no way in hell that I accidentally agreed to this.
If I sue in spite of all of this, then I agree that contents of this dialog are admission that I'm bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
If I'm still obtuse enough to sue then I agree that I'm too stupid to waste a court's time and am a vexatious litigant.
Any version of this software lacking the click through disclaimers is not the responsibility of this Project. For that matter neither is this one.
There should be no option to disable the disclaimers. That's the price of getting to edit video or otherwise operate a computer for free.