Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

DivX;) Goes Legit 257

Posted by timothy from the of-course-it-does dept.
ZooB writes: "There is an article running on CNET right now about DivX and how,(and I'm sure this comes as no surprise to anyone reading this here), such a technology used so frequently for piracy can be used in a legitimate manner. The article is interesting enough, but take careful note of the comment by an MPAA representative. "We are aware of DivX and similar technologies, but it's not the technology that's the issue, it's how it is applied," said a spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, who declined to comment specifically on DivXNetworks. "Our concern is with technology that is marketed, promoted and used as a tool for piracy." His first sentence seems to fly in the face of the DMCA as the law is currently written and then, perhaps realizing what he has just said, the spokesman back pedals and contradicts his previous statement! It is nice to know that someone besides a politician can speak out of both sides of their mouth."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DivX;) Goes Legit More

DivX;) Goes Legit

Comments Filter:

  • Still waiting for a hardware solution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by purduephotog ( 218304 ) <hirsch AT inorbit DOT com> on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:23PM (#2274698) Homepage Journal
    DivX is great, but the compression in software speed is incredibly slow.

    Now that it is 'legit' I'm sure it'll withstand all the lawyers the RIAA will send at it, including the incorporation of a watermark, copyright tags, limited distribution counter...

    It should be interesting to watch the development as it progresses- it truly is an outstanding codec... but with all the lawyers watching for a slipup, it might just not make it.

  • BAN EVERYTHING (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dashmaul ( 108555 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:24PM (#2274699)
    We should just ban everything that might possibly in some inconciveable way be used for anything even remotely illegal.

    Naturlly the content provider's should be the ones to tell us what those things might be.

    • Re:BAN EVERYTHING (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PopeAlien ( 164869 )
      I'm in complete agreement with you, I think that for clarity we should indeed ban everything. Not only would this protect people from the horrors of piracy, but all of those 15 year olds would get a kick out of the fact that no matter what they do, it would be illegal.

      But.. by 'content providers' do you mean the people that actually create the content (i.e. film-makers, musicians, etc) or do you mean desk-folk and brokers that buy the 'content' from the creator and re-sell it to the 'people'.

      • Re:BAN EVERYTHING (Score:4, Funny)

        by Tim Doran ( 910 ) <[moc.sregor] [ta] [narodymmit]> on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:49PM (#2274814)
        No, no, no, there's no money in banning everything. What we need to do is license everything.

        I think our beloved Content Providers should be trusted with this responsibility. Sort of an auxilliary government, charged with providing all services, information and communications we use on a daily basis. And we can trust them - I mean, the company that created Mickey Mouse, for example, couldn't do anything NOT in the public's best interest, right?

        We'd have giant media conglomerates acting as sort of Philosopher Kings to a public desperate for what they have to sell. And nobody would do anything illegal, 'cause it'd be impossible.

        I don't know if that ever made sense. But I burned off some steam ;)

    • Not a bad idea. Heck, since technology appears to be the real problem, why don't we simply outlaw technology and go back to the stone age ;)
      • Nah, Caveman Ogg could make a cave painting depicting Pearl Harbor, thus pissing off Caveman Eisner. To be totally sure, lets just kill all humans... and maybe the monkey's as well. I'm sure Shakespear starts to get nervous when a large group of them stumble upon some old IBM Selectrics.
    • You mean like this? [slashdot.org]

      You know what. I tried to fucking post the first fucking line of this message and I got this stupid fucking message:

      Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted

      Nice filtering that nukes real messages.
    • Quite. I vote we start with CDs and DVDs.

      I really want to see a congressman stand up in the house and demand bans on CDs, DVDs, video tapes, books, and anything else that can be copied, together with the associated players "which convert these tools of piracy into audio and video which can easily be copied by anyone with the right tools!"

    • We should just ban everything that might possibly in some inconciveable way be used for anything even remotely illegal.

      What, you mean, like Guns?

      After all Guns can be used to rob banks, and robbing banks is illegal. Yeah, let's ban Guns...

      Now if we can only get some of the politicians to use that analogy... Then the real fun will begin.

      Z.

  • Why MPAA won't comment (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Because they're preparing their legal assault!

    Fire in the hole!

  • ;) ? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by PovRayMan ( 31900 )
    I believe it's DivX ;-)

    • Re:;) ? (Score:3, Funny)

      by PopeAlien ( 164869 )
      I believe it's DivX ;-)

      Perhaps sniffing around for profitable oppourtunities with the MPAA et all has worn that nose clean off?

    • Re:;) ? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Jamie Zawinski ( 775 ) <jwz@jwz.org> on Monday September 10, 2001 @03:20PM (#2274950) Homepage

      Whoever thought it was a good idea to name a piece of software with a smiley should be strapped to a chair and forced to watch sitcoms for the rest of their life.

      "The smiley is an attack on writers and readers alike. If it is funny, it doesn't need a smiley. If is not funny, a smiley won't help it. The smiley teaches writers that anything they write will pass as humor as long as it is punctuated properly. It teaches readers that they must ignore their better judgment, and look only at punctuation to determine intent." -- Jim Showalter

      "...the hateful :) which means 'just kidding' and is used by people who would dot their i's with little circles and should have their eyes dotted with Drano." -- Penn Jillette

      "I cringe when I see them. On the other hand, smileys might be a real help for today's students, raised on TV and unskilled at spotting irony without a laugh track." -- Roger Ebert

      • [Off-Topic] Re:;) ? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Grail ( 18233 )

        I can't believe I'm responding to a post by Jamie TheWhingeSki.

        However, it's useful to note that cultural differences and the lack of modulation in text mean that often one must use creative punctuation to convey the intent of humour.

        The various types of humour include:

        • wit,
        • satire,
        • sarcasm,
        • irony,
        • farce,
        • slapstick and buffoonery,
        • parody and burlesque, and
        • mimicry.

        Of these, the kinds generally understood by the People of the United States of America are... anything accompanied by a laugh track.

      • Nice to see that the rumours of JWZ's death are still premature. (I started reading Slashdot *that* weekend in October '98.)

        I use the smiley on infrequent occasion in posts to Slashdot when I can forsee the possiblilty of what I say being taken the wrong way, partly to avoid giving offence to someone who doesn't happen to be reading in the same tone of voice as that in which I am writing, and partly to forstall replies from enraged jerks and idiots.

  • It could work... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by krugdm ( 322700 ) <slashdot.ikrug@com> on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:30PM (#2274734) Homepage Journal
    ...if they can get rid of the pirate hacker stigma, kind of like what MP3 has to overcome. I think that a big step would be to change the name. When I hear DivX, I think of two things, actually. A pirate video format, and a failed marketing experiment by the fine folks at Circus City.

    • Re:It could work... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kaszeta ( 322161 ) <rich@kaszeta.org> on Monday September 10, 2001 @03:41PM (#2275081) Homepage

      When I hear DivX, I think of two things, actually. A pirate video format, and a failed marketing
      experiment by the fine folks at Circus City.


      I've always been annoyed with the name. Why go out of your way to choose a name that matches an existing (crappy) video standard. Not only is the name the same, but I've run into enough conversations where there is at least some ambiguity.

      Seriously, I hope the people that came up with that name are forever getting pissed off by people mistaking their work for the failed Circuit City format. It'll teach them a lesson to pick names more carefully in the future.

      Then again, they may rename it to something worse, like DeeVeeDee. :)

      Even more surprising is the number of people I've talked to that don't even know that there was a previous video format called DIVX. Is the collective memory of the internet community that bad?

  • Goes legit? Interesting way of saying we would like to make money on this now.

  • My favorite quote: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by reaper20 ( 23396 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:33PM (#2274744) Homepage
    Observes Microsoft's Aldridge: "Trying to market yourself as the MP3 of video is not going to endear you to content owners."

    In other words: Microsoft is your true solution for legitimate video and audio codecs. If you any other codec, then we'll assume you're a pirate, because why would you need another codec when you have DRM/XP/Passport enabled technologies?

    Because anything not blessed off by the RIAA/MPAA is automatically copyright infringement. I honestly think this is what they think....

    The arrogance of these people is really sickening.

    • With the latest proposal in congress Microsoft will be the only legitimate solution BY LAW. If you can't out program them then out lawyer them. BTW I think that ESR is wrong and Lessig is write. Government control of the internet is possible, and these actions show how it can be done, and that it is comming. No connecting that unapproved "pirate friendly" OS to the internet for you.
  • Impossible. They're the heroes of American society, boldly struggling against the forces of evil.

    Either that, or they're just a bunch of lying snakes. Your call.

  • Irony? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by [amorphis] ( 45762 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:35PM (#2274754)
    For example, consumers can now rent the 1995 film "World and Time Enough" for $4.95 directly from Strand Releasing's Web site for five days, after which the file will become inaccessible.

    kind of ironic, when that's exactly what the original DIVX did
    • Almost. With the original DIVX you had to buy the media first before you could rent it!? Here you just rent it and then download it and it will be available for the period of your rent.
      • But wasn't the media for the original DIVX like bargain-basement priced, like $8.95 or something, and it included your first "rental"?

        I think it wasn't a terrible idea, but I only rent movies I don't buy them.

    • Re:Irony? (Score:3, Funny)

      by ReelOddeeo ( 115880 )
      What if it takes more than five days to download a movie?
    • amorphis wrote: kind of ironic, when that's exactly what the original DIVX did

      The largest complaint about Divx was that it would become the only option for viewing DVD movies, because all those greedy companies like Disney had plans for unlimited rental-based revenue. Can't you imagine you're five year old kid... "Daddy, Daddy. I want to watch Winnie the Pooh again" - for the hundreth time. Can you say, "Cha-ching"?

      Doesn't that immediately strike you as highly analogous to Microsoft's plans for going to the rental software model?

      God bless,
      -Toby Reyelts

      • all those greedy companies like Disney had plans for unlimited rental-based revenue. Can't you imagine you're five year old kid... "Daddy, Daddy. I want to watch Winnie the Pooh again" - for the hundreth time. Can you say, "Cha-ching"?

        Wrong. All DIVX players had an option to extend a disc's rental period indefinitely (i.e. until the DIVX program ended) for US$25.

        • Wrong. All DIVX players had an option to extend a disc's rental period indefinitely (i.e. until the DIVX program ended) for US$25.

          And I'm certain that if the format had come to dominate, that they would never have altered those terms to remove the "purchase" (actually, perpetual rental for as long as DivX remained viable, which, fortunately, wasn't very long). Not.

        • I recall there were "silver" and "gold" discs - on one of these flavors (I can't remember which) perminent unlocking was not allowed.

          Regardless of my getting the color right, I definatley remember there were discs that did not allow enabling the rental perminently, and any that you could only enabled them for your exact player - buy a new one, pay a new fee.
        • Wrong. All DIVX players had an option to extend a disc's rental period indefinitely (i.e. until the DIVX program ended) for US$25.

          Let's see, $5 to rent the disc in the first place, and another $25 to "buy" it. So for $30 you can "own" a movie. I pay less than $20 for my DVDs. Which is the better deal? Not to mention you couldn't play the discs on the player in your bedroom, or loan them to a friend. Nor could you play them on any future player you might buy. If your current player broke, you'd just be out the $x thousands you spent on your movie collection.

          This conversation is moot, though, since DIVX was squashed. Most consumers were smart enough to refuse to adopt a pay-per-view format like this. These "new" ideas of doing similar things with MP3s and CDs won't fly, either.

  • Wrong target... *sigh* (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sporty ( 27564 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:36PM (#2274757) Homepage
    So while RealNetworks, MS and Quicktime aren't being yelled at for having similar products, a company who's completely open is being targeted? Isn't this hypocritical?


    Go after the small fry, sue the hell out of him, then taken their technology. Notice how mp3 companies are now now servants of the RIAA?


    Sue MS? How can they? THey provide the OS? Go after apple or realnetworks? Can't either. Big mmedia companies who use their technologies. What does DiVX ;) use from the MPAA? Nothing.

    • Sue MS? How can they? THey provide the OS? Go after apple or realnetworks? Can't either. Big mmedia companies who use their technologies. What does DiVX ;) use from the MPAA? Nothing.

      Drinking and writting don't mix. The MPAA uses nothing that DivX ;) offers. Apple and Real are big companies who's techologies are used by the MPAA as well.

  • DivX is not legit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mukund ( 163654 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:36PM (#2274759) Homepage
    DivX is not legit. It uses patented technology, which needs per-copy license fees which haven't been paid by anyone. The MPEG-4 standard is full of patented methods (which is what DivX ;-) and OpenDivX is based on). Besides, DivX ;-) used copyrighted code, which further makes it illegal. I don't know how far Project Mayo got with replacing all of Microsoft and MoMuSys's code with their own. There're lots of posts on their forums with people questioning how the heck they started off with the copyrighted code.
    • hmm... DivX claims its recent software was a clean implementation... a new start, completely from scratch. Which should get Micrsoft off their back, at least over this issue.

    • Re:DivX is not legit (Score:5, Informative)

      by technos ( 73414 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @03:23PM (#2274964) Homepage Journal
      It uses patented technology
      Prove it. It may be based loosly on the MPEG-4 standard, but it is decidedly not MPEG-4.

      which needs per-copy license fees which haven't been paid by anyone
      Hunh? No patent, no fees. If they were walking on someone else, you better bet they'd have been sued by now.

      got with replacing all of Microsoft
      They never had Microsoft's code. It was a binary hack that killed some quality issues. Also, that was another version.

      and MoMuSys's code
      Which was a sample implementation, free for all to look at and play with. Just like the sample code that started LAME.

      Methinks you should start paying attention, mukund.

      • Re:DivX is not legit (Score:2, Informative)

        by mukund ( 163654 )
        Please take the time to investigate, before posting arguments.

        It uses patented technology. The MPEG-4 standard collectively as a whole is not patented. Various algorithms which form the MPEG-4 visual FCD are patented. OpenDivX uses these algorithms. Go through the source code, if you want proof. MPEG-4 AAC Audio also contains many patented processes. FAAC (a similar but audio project) stopped distribution [sourceforge.net] after Dolby complained.

        FYI, Microsoft's source code is available as a reference implementation from CSELT. Divx ;-) isn't a binary hack. It's a full plugin, made from modified Microsoft code.

        MoMuSys's code is a reference implementation, which is one among two reference implementations of the MPEG-4 FCD (the other one is Microsoft's). Both are copyrighted (please go through the comment headers of files in the source code for proof). FYI, the dist10 "sample code" reference implementation which started LAME was also copyrighted, which is why LAME was distributed as a patch for so long.

        "Hunh? No patent, no fees. If they were walking on someone else, you better bet they'd have been sued by now."
        Maybe you haven't been paying attention. Project Mayo is a commercial company, and they intend to release OpenDivX as "DivX Deux" (a formal product), once the quality of source code reaches a certain stage. They might license the patented technology involved. Still, DivX ;-) was not paid for.

        ProjectMayo is a wrong project for an opensource developer to spend time on. It is plagued with various issues.

        Regards,
        Mukund

        • Re:DivX is not legit (Score:3, Informative)

          by Strider- ( 39683 )
          The Software patent issues are only valid if you live in a jurisdiction where said software patents are valid. As long as the developers live in a jurisdiction without the oppressive laws of the USA, it's perfectly legal.

  • DMCA violations (Score:5, Funny)

    by krek ( 153865 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:38PM (#2274763) Homepage
    If Microsoft analyses the DivX product looking for IP violations... would they not have violated the DMCA?

  • Anti SSSCA Petition (Score:5, Interesting)

    by idonotexist ( 450877 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:41PM (#2274780)
    Considering the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA) is the next step for DMCA and, likely, endorsed by MPAA it seems the /. community should do what it can to stop SSSCA in its tracks now.

    From Wired magazine: "The SSSCA and existing law work hand in hand to steer the market toward using only computer systems where copy protection is enabled. First, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act created the legal framework that punished people who bypassed copy protection -- and now, the SSSCA is intended to compel Americans to buy only systems with copy protection on by default."

    If you have a minute and oppose SSSCA, please sign the petition opposing this drafted legislation at:
    http://www.petitiononline.com/SSSCA/petition.html [petitiononline.com].


    • that acronym is way too unwieldy. Let's call it the S3CA. That way, it's still a four-letter word like "DMCA" and "fork"
    • Is this real? Two senators introduce something, is that really sufficient to call it a threat?
      • There's a lot of money behind this legislation. You can be sure that it's a threat.

      • Re:Anti SSSCA Petition (Score:5, Informative)

        by bwt ( 68845 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @03:56PM (#2275161)
        Is this real? Two senators introduce something, is that really sufficient to call it a threat?

        Yes it is a nuclear bomb that has already been launched!! Do you think it is an accident that two Senators introduced this? One of them is the chairman of the commerce committee, for Christ's sake. Good God, man, are you really in denial this bad? Wake UP!!!

        Right now the score is 0-2 in the Senate. Game is 51 (including the VP).

        We have to act NOW to defeat this piece of fascism.

        You need to write and call your representative and senators NOW. If you haven't done this in the next 48 hours, then you are a chump who deserves to have your computer given to the MPAA. The big media are preparing a heavy lobbying campaign to get this passed.

        Talking points:
        1) The bill is fascist. Keep the government's hands off my computer.
        2) A mandatory security standard will direct all security applications to a single point of failure
        3) Consumers hate "Digital Rights Management" and won't buy it. PC sales will stagnate even more.
        4) Trusted client is provably crackable. If you try to shove this down consumer's throats, I guaranty it will be cracked quickly.
        5) The "Copyright Industry" is harming America, because they are clinging to business models that require a police state to work.
        6) Copyright is teetering dangerously close to illigitimacy because the government isn't listening to the people.
        7) Reject Copyright Fascism.
        • Consumers hate "Digital Rights Management" and won't buy it. PC sales will stagnate even more.
          This effect can not be overstated. Increasingly controllers of content are producing products that are less and less what the consumer wants. People are begining to back off of purchase of media and associated devices because it's becoming "too hard" to enjoy. (Have you tried to hook up a DVD player to a TV through a VCR?)

          However, I'm a big fan of the secondary market, so for me -- as long as the law stays away from secondhand products -- this new draconian consumers-as-cash-cows law does in fact promote activities I'm "for". Why buy a new, overpriced, PC when hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of perfectly capable PCs are, weekly, going to auction [rossauction.com.au]? These unwanted laws (a strange concept in itself) will only hasten the demise of the unsustainable business models that the RIAA and MPAA cling to.

          There's an early scene in Soylent Green [imdb.com] where people purchase small coloured boxes only to dispose of them once they get home -- it keeps the economy going. While I'm sure the respective heads of the aformentioned organisations cream their pants while watching that, I doubt the rest of the population is going to let things get much closer to that point than they already are.

  • Flash-free version. (Score:4, Informative)

    by ahaning ( 108463 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:43PM (#2274789) Homepage Journal
    Try http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-202-7093278.html [cnet.com] for a fast-loading, flash-free version of the article.

  • DivX and m$ (Score:3, Funny)

    by why-is-it ( 318134 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:43PM (#2274791) Homepage Journal
    "The DivX technology lineage is based on using Microsoft technology and re-branding it as its own," said Michael Aldridge, Microsoft's product manager for the Windows Digital Media Division.

    Translation: All of your codec are belong to us.

    • Re:DivX and m$ (Score:2, Insightful)

      by madsci1975 ( 303472 )
      "The DivX technology lineage is based on using Microsoft technology and re-branding it as its own," said Michael Aldridge, Microsoft's product manager for the Windows Digital Media Division."

      Strange...... It`s looks exactly the same tactical approach as Microsoft have been using for more than 10 year: Try to copy Apple technology and re-branding it as it`s own. And now, someone have done someting the same way as Microsoft is used to do to everyone and they don`t like ité That means they belive they are the only one allowed to do this. CRAP!

  • The format isn't the problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by M_Talon ( 135587 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:44PM (#2274799) Homepage
    *gets out the equine cadaver bat*

    It absolutely amazes me that we keep going back to blaming a format for piracy problems. It's simply foolish, really. By the laws of Internet probability, someone will come up with a compression scheme to transmit data. That scheme will naturally contain little if any copy protection scheme, because why copy protect something you want to disseminate?

    The only way to truly win that war is to create a format that works better and includes a level of copy protection that is both secure and doesn't impeded normal operation. Unfortunately, this seems to be a holy grail that companies aren't able to reach yet. Encrypted CDs aren't the answer, because they don't work on PCs or some players. Neither are proprietary forms of encoding, because no one wants to spend $400 on a special player to play one lousy movie or CD.

    Wish there was an easy answer to this issue, but as long as there is data, there'll always be a way to compress and send it.
    • "includes a level of copy protection that is both secure and doesn't impeded normal operation." and "a holy grail that companies aren't able to reach yet??"

      • [Way for me to prematurely hit RETURN while composing this in Internet Explorer. Hopefully it doesn't detract from my point too much, which was:]

        There's no "yet" about it. The reason this hasn't happend, and the reason it will never happen, is it is impossible.

        Consideration of the age-old history of cryptography (I recommend The Code Book by Simon Singh [simonsingh.com]) strongly suggests this. Code makers and code breakers are in a race, and one or the other may be ahead at any given time, but sooner or later, the other has always managed to catch up.

        • Even if unbreakable cryptography is possible (which I believe) it has nothing to do with this.
          The unbreakable cryptography assummes both parties in communication are interested in keeping the contents of the message secret. This is not true for entertainment.

  • Mouth? (Score:4, Funny)

    by craw ( 6958 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:48PM (#2274811) Homepage
    ...It is nice to know that someone besides a politician can speak out of both sides of their mouth.

    I agree, but you got the wrong orifice.

  • Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Robber Baron ( 112304 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @02:51PM (#2274828) Homepage
    "We are aware of DivX and similar technologies, but it's not the technology that's the issue, it's how it is applied," said a spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, who declined to comment specifically on DivXNetworks. "Our concern is with technology that is marketed, promoted and used as a tool for piracy."

    Bullshit.

    This is not about piracy. This is about the content providers using "piracy" as a means to justify threatening and bullying an uninformed public into letting them help themselves to a bigger slice of the pie. They want a system where you pay to see the movie in the theater, you pay to aquire the DVD, you pay if you move to another region because you need to purchase another player to watch movies for sale in that region, you pay for the privledge of watching it on your PC. You pay...and pay...and pay... Hell, they'd probably like us to pay royalties on the memories we have in our heads!

    • Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

      by osgeek ( 239988 )
      This is about the content providers using "piracy" as a means to justify threatening and bullying an uninformed public into letting them help themselves to a bigger slice of the pie.

      I'm sure you're right on the money about some of those publishers. But how can we on /. deny that piracy is a legitimate concern of content producers? Who here doesn't know how to obtain tons of pirated content: MP3's, DivX's, Images, books, etc.?

      Why paint all content producers as just a bunch of greedy SOB's on the one hand while condoning napster and other content theives on the other? Where's the middle ground here where a solution might lie?

      • Me.

        I don't know how to get pirated books.

        Umm... I don't suppose you'd tell me, would you?

  • We need a nerdfarm in our capital buildings to act as lobbyists. Anyone wanna drop out of college and visit the capitol?

    We've got to stop the MPAA/DMCA/RIAA from banding together. Maybe we should ask Mr. Heston to join us--that way these corporate thugs would be scared of us.
    ...I mean, No one's more powerful than Moses-- haha!

  • Market Evolution (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sane? ( 179855 )
    Face it, even if you are the most law abiding person around, DivX;) performs the useful task of limiting the film studios power.

    Without a force to counter the natural greed of big business they will milk anything, and everything, to the last drop. Control the actors and directors, control the content, control the distribution, control the branding. Maximise the return on investiment, minimise the risk. Piracy provides a countering force, and DivX;) is the latest tool to effect that force.

    Once government might have fulfiled that limitation role, might have kept big business in check, but no longer. Do you think they pay attention to what the public say? Providing they won't talk with their feet (and they won't), then the movie companies know they can ignore the protests - just mouth reassurances.

    Now when the movie studios want to increase prices, there is a counter. When they want to limit distribution to the timing they like, there is a counter. When they want to only distribute their choices, there is a counter.

    Piracy is the only effective weapon to really be noticed by big business. Say thank you.

  • Sez the article:

    Ironically, DivXNetworks' success could ultimately hinge on its ability to shut down the community that it helped foster.

    Two words: good luck

  • Here's an open source alternative ... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Neon_Mango ( 143057 ) <seanNO@SPAMbaseri.com> on Monday September 10, 2001 @03:32PM (#2275018) Homepage
    DivX as it stands has poor playback on Macs and at best decent playback on x86 Linux (people using Suns or LinuxPPC machines still have to wait). But there is a much better option, it's called VP3.2 and it was released last Friday (Sep 7) under a modified Mozilla Public License 1.1. Yes folks you read correctly, there is a decent video compression codec that is open source. Quicktime 5, Real Player and Windows Media Player can already read the movie files with the codec installed, and a Linux port is on the way. This codec beats the snot out of DivX in the streaming arena. Playback quality is good, and will get better with more work. Get it at:
    http://www.vp3.com
    • I don't have time to dig up the link, but check out MPlayer. It comes with extensive documentation and pointers to libraries, including an open-source DiVX;-) library in the works -- so that you no longer need the Windows DLL, for example. I've tested it, it works very well.

      OTOH, that there is a totally open-source codec is *VERY* good news. Hopefully it'll end up being like Ogg, an excellent alternative because of its better overall quality? We can always dream anyway.
  • You know it occurs to me that piracy in all it's forms has depended HEAVILY on compression. If software was distributed in an uncompressed form and compression was declared illegal then the entire piracy problem would cease to exist!

    (obligitory sarcasm disclaimer here for the sarcasm impaired)

    The same kinds of relationships between illegal activities and VERY USEFULL tools or commodities can be found all throughout every day life. It's pretty hard to smoke pot without oxygen or commit a drive-by without cars yet still oxygen and cars are freely available. Perhaps we shouldn't tell congress. :)

    -Zane
    • Think of the ramifications of making compression illegal! Would that include even non-data compression? Would the streetcorner player have to hang up his accordion? Would the house wife or husband (for political correctness) be forced to burn their sponges? Or maybe the real answer is to have someone police files being sent, and stretch them out... inserting extra bits everywhere... THAT would work! =D -z3r0byt3
  • At least the part of the MPAA that lobbied for DMCA and is currently lobbying for SSSCA. So the two-sides-of-the-mouth-talking doesn't surprise me one bit.
  • Perception is reality. While those of us in the Free World see DIVX for what it really is -- a patent-unencumbered, open-systems codec -- we are the minority. Listen to folks in Windows circles talk about digital video. Since DIVX doesn't come from Microsoft or RealNetworks, they refer to it as a "warez codec". That's a loaded phrase, but it's bandied about quite often. It implies that its only use is for bypassing the DRM in corporate formats. That's definitely the way the intellectual property police want people to see it, too. It's up to us to educate the drooling masses.
  • It is nice to know that someone besides a politician can speak out of both sides of their mouth.

    Alas, it seems to be a trick that certain [www.rte.ie] Canadian [celebritoons.com] politicians [umanitoba.ca] have yet to master.

    (Sorry, Jean.)

  • ...and nobody's mentioned (admittedly still in 'planning' stage) Ogg Tarkin [xiph.org] yet? Shocking...

    'Course, there doesn't seem to be any actual code yet, while the developers seem to have been busy with Vorbis instead, but it looks like there are interested people working on it, anyway.

    I noticed their mailing list archives show some discussion of whether the vp3 codec mentioned in one or two other posts might make an interim codec to use for an Ogg video file format while Tarkin is under development...

  • I've been following 3ivX [3ivx.com], which its creators say is more compact, stable, multiplatform and legal (created from scratch, compared to DivX which was ripped off from Microsoft) than DivX;). But it's less popular. How come? If 3ivX is so much better, people should use it the most. I've heard that it will become a standard part of Quicktime soon.

    But as for the technical side, how does it actually compare? I haven't done tests.
    • But it's less popular. How come?

      Not sure, but my guess is:

      1. It's another closed-source, binary-only codec (or so it seems looking at the site)
      2. On *nix, at least, it seems even those plugins are only available for xanim and the relatively new "openquicktime" project (which I think IS open source) that they're working on (Can't even tell if the codec can be used for ENcoding on *nix, or just decoding)
      I suspect that if a good encoder were available (open!) on *nix along with being open enough that it could be added to the various video players available on *nix, they might get some popularity. As it is, to me it looks like it's "just another windows/mac video format" (which may or may not be good, but windows and mac already have a plethora of codecs to choose from, by comparison with *nix, so there may be nothing to make 3ivx stand out...)

      Don't know if any of my speculation here is TRUE, but it's my best guesses...

  • IP is the problem. It exists, and it must be dealt with. DivX is not the solution; it is too narrow in scope, and too extreme in its limits,

    While the various IP merchants are pushing for a "pay-per-view/rental" scenario, this doesn't match current standards of IP control at all.

    It's outrageous to expect the population to accept an outright ban on "non digital rights certified devices"(posted on slashdot recently) -- as outrageous as a population expecting to be able to use BearShare to aquire copyrighted materials for free.

    The industry is pushing for a world where all transferred objects are guaranteed legit, and unreplicatable. The hardcore few claim there has been a technology shift, and all information must be free.

    Both sides are wrong, and any company that thinks MS is going to be their savior is a fool. Microsoft will toss out the IP middlemen as sure as they have destroyed netscape and countless other quality companies -- the IP merchants are just next in line.

    It's been said by reasonable people on slashdot over and over again : Just make it hard enough, and the penalties distasteful enough, and people won't steal. Our whole society works on this premise...and it is effective. Sure, I could steal at the market, but the potential downside far outweighs the benefits. Sure, the NSA could mount a camera (a small one) on my dick to make sure I'm not a child molester, but that's going a little overboard with regards to a presumption of innocence and my personal privacy.

    What can I do with a CD? I can loan it out, I can make copies for myself, I can play it (potentially) an infinite number of times, I can sell it, I can give it away to a friend, family or library. Similar situations exist with other IP -- dvds, books, etc.

    What can't I do? Replicate and distribute the IP for free or profit. I can only transfer the copy I own, a single copy.

    So there needs to be an infrastructure that makes it impossible for the current object holder to use an IP object unless they hold the rights -- via direct or indirect sale, loan, gift, etc. Perhaps some type of key system gets examined and allows decryption of the IP, with severe penalties for "crackers" who post IP protection bypass software.

    This is not rocket science; banks allow activities over the web and we are comfortable with that, The IRS and Social Security keep regularly updated records on individuals and their status.

    The IP situation can be dealt with without either side freaking out -- this should not be treated as a big "Win-Lose" situation where the public, Microsoft or the IP merchants and up in a "winner take all" scenario. Extreme outcomes are unneccesary.

  • Hey it IS CLOSED SOURCE! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stikves ( 127823 ) on Monday September 10, 2001 @06:37PM (#2275752) Homepage
    They can easily satisfy MPAA and other movie companies. Because the codec includes "content protection" and "pay-per-view" facilities. How can thay do this with an open codec? They cannot! But the codec (DivX4) is pretty much closed now...


    When I first saw the article, I thought the discussion would include the (lack of) "openness" of the codec.


    I think it did not make many noise, but they have closed the codec, and halted the open version. Proof?
    their post on their forum! [projectmayo.com]


    Well, let's realize this. The used idealist open source hackers to make their closed source codec and also money. Their license was less acceptable even than the darwin license!


    What did they do? They make a "reference" implementation open. It contained all the features needed for MPEG4 except any optimizations. But then they did learn how to make a codec, they made another indoor version (which we do not know to contain code from open version). And they made it "faster" and "more reliable". ... The open one? it's a joke now! Disgusting, but true...


  • People silent-speaking:

    DivX is bad freedom.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close