An excellent video conversion software (free Nov.24th)

[truenorth]

I do not normally suggest computer software unless it is a direct result of a member's quest for something. So this is a first.Today's offering on the site "giveawayoftheday" is featuring a  video converter by a company "*SPAM URL*" whose products i use often and can highly recommend . I currently do use their *SPAM URL* Total Media Converter but this today offering is their most current and comprehensive video conversion software that they produce.The reviews have it at 81% satisfaction rating. So for those of you looking for a very good (and easy to use) video conversion program this could be it.
http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/
truenorth

[Salmon Trout]

This is another of those *SPAM URL* products which uses the well known open source FFmpeg video converter. This is disguised in the install package and the files in the final program folder. As with all the others, it is in violation of the GPL because it neither acknowledges the use of FFmpeg nor does it include the source as the GPL requires. Also Aieesoft breaks the GPL by seeking to impose its own copyright restrictions on a product whose heart is pirated. Aieesoft has a somewhat bad reputation for shenanigans of this type. If you want to get FFmpeg with a GUI front end, there are plenty of GPL-compliant honest programs such as Handbrake and WinFF. Having said all that, it does actually work, but that it only because FFmpeg is so good.

[truenorth]

ST, Very interesting comments. I would have thought that "giveawayof the day" would have been aware of that and considered their offering on it's basis.As i said i do use other of their software and have been extremely pleased with their performance. As I'm sure you know this product as is the case in all others i believe (not only those of *SPAM URL*) have paid for versions of the same software that are available from their products web site. While I'm not intimately aware of the ins and outs of the software production companies and their "shenanigans" it seems to me that giveawayoftheday and *SPAM URL* itself would be wide open to legal product infringement if they offered propitiatory software of another company. We see evidence of those suits all the time in the media. What i do find fascinating is how my inclusion of the name *SPAM URL* in my original post is now changed to "*SPAM URL*" truenorth

[Salmon Trout]

Giveaway Of The Day have been giving away Aieesoft products for years. They also give away Easeus, clone2go, and many other products which violate the GPL. The idea is to create publicity and hopefully get people to upgrade to "premium" versions. It is very hard to get such violators to stop. Open source authors do not generally have big cash resources like big commercial software companies do. It seems like Truenorth does not wish to accept what I am saying, but it is true.

There are many reports of GOTD violations, even on their own forums...

http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/7351

[truenorth]

No! No! ST you misrepresent my thinking. I do NOT say that which you relate is untrue. I only find it bewildering that *SPAM URL* which appears to be a legitimate company offering a multitude of product IE: http://www.*SPAM URL*.com/product-video-w.html
would still be in existence if they offered for sale products known to contain illegal content which they do NOT posses the right to use. It may be but i find it strange.In this case today the product offered is the 1st displayed on their page i have linked and it IS (according to their portrayal) the premium of their line for the function it does. So i don't think their motivation is to offer a lesser product in order to induce you to upgrade to a "premium"product. But if as you say often shenanigans are at play in these offerings i guess only time will tell if that is so in this case. I can only relate as to my personal knowledge (though it certainly has limitations) that my experience so far with their products has been very acceptable and that which they offer has performed as it was stated to do.truenorth

[patio]

Salmon i was unaware that Easus also fell into this shady area of Author's...

As of now i will stop recommending the Product as i have in the past...

Thanx for the heads up...

[truenorth]

Further to the ST observations re *SPAM URL* and this specific offering. I have just gone to the computer which i did download the aforementioned product today. When i click on the open program (version 6.3.26) and select "about" it clearly indicates that this program is under copyright 2008-2012 by *SPAM URL*. Would not the copyright process require the company to clearly demonstrate that it was an original work and did not infringe on the propitiatory property of someone else? Isn't that  a condition of copyright granting?truenorth

[Salmon Trout]

Anyone can write whatever they like in a copyright notice. It does not necessarily give it legal force. There is no "copyright process" such as you imagine. Copyright is not "granted".

[BC_Programmer]

Anyone can write whatever they like in a copyright notice. It does not necessarily give it legal force. There is no "copyright process" such as you imagine. Copyright is not "granted".

Indeed. Copyright is essentially automatic; the License of a piece of software gives you rights to the software and/or it's accompanying source code. GPL, for example, is called "Copyleft" because it's license actually gives you more freedom than the "default" copyright license that would be attributed if there was no explicit license with the software.

For example, my Programs usually have a Copyright notice on them. Copyright is automatic when you create something; if I write a program, I own the copyright to it. However- just because my about boxes say "Copyright 2008-20012 BASeCamp Corporation" (or whatever) doesn't mean that I followed a copyright "process", nor is it even a guarantee of, well, anything. Even if there was a "copyright process" as you (Truenorth) envisions it, they wouldn't have legal control over what get's put in an about box. A person or company willing to lift GPL code and use it for-profit in their own Applications probably wouldn't have any qualms about circumventing a hypothetical "copyright process" and just putting a copyright notice in the software anyway.

In some ways these violations illustrate one of the bigger problems with GPL, and, to be more specific, copyright; if a piece of GPL'd software is having it's license infringed, who enforces it? Somebody has to pay lawyers and essentially file suit against the infringing party. the FSF does try to be a sort of mitigating force in doing this and making sure Copyleft licenses are not violated, but they can't be everywhere at once; and fact is that in many ways Copyright is something that really only benefits the companies that can afford to prevent infringements of their IP.

I disagree with the GPL, myself, and instead prefer to use a BSD/MIT license in my own programs (the ones that are OSS anyway). But the license chosen by the developer of a piece of software is something that should be respected by other developers, and what these companies are basically doing is stealing code from other developers and outright infringing the license of use that the code is provided under, and trying to make money off of it, while ignoring all the terms of the license. They do this not because they didn't notice. They know exactly what they are doing- they do it because they can turn a profit and they know that the people who's code they are stealing don't have the means to do anything about it.

[truenorth]

I find the discussion around this thread very intriguing (and also quite enlightening as i am learning more as it evolves). Though not intended to be misleading words i have used do not entirely represent the reality of what the process and/or what the consequences of what copyright is, mean (in the legal sense). Yes all things of creations by an individual (and even then there are some exceptions) are indeed automatic. However in my own pursuit of additional knowledge (beyond that which is generously being provided by other members) seems to indicate that the "process" of copyright protection is greatly enhanced by the registration process. Which is i gather more onerous than just the creation of the largely original work. The registration process seems to hold more weight and adds to the legal validity  should the need arise. So i feel that my use of the word granting would be more appropriately associated with the registration process.Because in countries that offer this option there are conditions required before registration is completed. Of course it would be extremely naive of me to deny the existence of fraud in terms of copyright infringement but within the constraints identified by BC i am certain those with the means/knowledge/inclination can and do pursue theft of copyright material. We witness it all the time and i'm sure many a law firm rely heavily on application. By the way i still like and intend to use the *SPAM URL* products i have and i hope their statement re copyright is a valid and true one.truenorth

[BC_Programmer]

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg08607.html

The facts here.

1. They are using ffmpeg. ffmpeg falls under GPL. GPL requires that the source code of a product be distributed with it.
2. They do not provide the source code.


They are violating the GPL, there really is no question about it. According to the thread/mailing list I link above, it also uses Qt, but provides no information that it's using it, the use of which is also governed by the GPL. It also steals code from memtest86. (avformat-52.dll) contains resource strings and code from memtest86.

Their  x264 codec (marked as "cuda support" by the program) is stolen from VLC.

i hope their statement re copyright is a valid and true one

It's not. As above: they use various bits of other Open Source projects with the sole purpose of trying to glue them together and make a profit off the work of others.

If you want to confirm that the copyright is not "registered" you can easily search for registered copyrights- they are a public record. Of course, if they had registered the copyright, they would have the copyright registration ID on the about box as well.

So, just to reiterate:

1. The product does use GPL code. There is no question about this, and it's easily confirmed by just looking at the resources and even just by way of the libraries shipped with the product.

2. the GPL license requires you make source available to your customers with the product or to include a written offer. This is not optional, and they do NOT do this. Violation 1. They don't even mention anything about GPL, of which the entire GPL license is supposed to be included withe any product that uses GPL code. Violation 2.

This is not exactly atypical, about 80% of the "Video converters" and "DVD rippers" you can find online do this; they outright steal GPL'd code, ignore the license, paste it into a GUI (almost always made using yet another Open Source product) and then try to pass it of as their own (just look at the EULA for one of their programs- does it mention anything about the GPL? Of course not. Heaven forbid people find out they can download and use a Free Video converter, rather than buy or use this shareware.

THAT IS... by the way, what it is. It's a shareware product. Giveaway of the Day doesn't give away free programs, these things normally cost money. That's Violation 3, since the GPL specifically states that you can only charge, at most, for the cost of distribution media.

[truenorth]

Must really be a struggle for those of you in the software creation business given this kind of behavior.I am sure that most computer users are not aware of any of this.Too bad people cannot just be honest and play fair.truenorth

[BC_Programmer]

Must really be a struggle for those of you in the software creation business given this kind of behavior.I am sure that most computer users are not aware of any of this.Too bad people cannot just be honest and play fair.truenorth

Honestly it's worse for the consumers; looking at their site, they normally charge 35 dollars for this product, which is nothing more than a repackaged Open Source program. The authors of the OSS software don't really lose anything, it's the people who's wallets they are draining that really lose.

Their technique is effective- basically take some Open Source product, make a program around it, and release it at cost. Then, their army of spammer minions spam forums, blogs, etcetera to make sure they are higher on the search results, and unwary victims buy the product.

[truenorth]

Thank you for your input BC and ST as well. Lest there be even a modicum of doubt it certainly was NOT my intention when i offered the suggestion i did at the outset of this thread to become a part of "their army of spammer minions". I honestly believed i had found a good program that others might benefit from. I am contemplating contacting the software company in view of my new found knowledge but i assume i would have as much effect as trying to persuade a stick-up artist to find a better calling in life.truenorth

[Allan]

There's nothing wrong with posting links to giveawayoftheday.com's offerings. I do it once in a while when there is a product I think others should know about. You weren't aware of the issue - and even if you were, the software is still available for public download from a legitimate site.

[Salmon Trout]

1. I am quite sure that truenorth posted with the best intentions.
2. I feel that the numerous GPL-busting products supplied through Giveaway Of The Day raise a number of questions about such sites (there are plenty of other download sites where these products are hosted).
3. The company name will be unintentionally funny to British people of a certain age, who recall British war comics of the 1950s and 1960s, where fearless British solders/sailors/airmen would pump bullets into enemy solders/sailors/airmen. The Germans used to shout "Aaaarrrgh!" or sometimes "Himmel!" and the Japanese ones would shout (or scream) "Aieeee!". (They shouted "Banzai!" when they were on the offensive.)

[evilfantasy]

I think it boils down to if they are following the License Compliance Checklist or not.

I'm not going to investigate it but skimming through the FAQ I kind of doubt that *SPAM URL* is 100% compliant.

Furthermore *SPAM URL* offers paid software yet the website had no direct contact information (phone number, physical street address) and has hidden owner details. Whois http://whois.domaintools.com/*SPAM URL*.com

Now. In the FFmpeg Patent Mini-FAQ not even the FFmpeg authors know what is and isn't patented. That pretty much leaves them open to being "ripped off" by anyone wanting to use their technology.

Then there is this:

Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product?
A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.

Can anyone say *SPAM URL* is or is not paying royalties to those who want compensation?

- I woudn't trust *SPAM URL* with any purchases. If you want a refund it's probably not going to happen.
- Personally I would leave the legal stuff to the companies using/creating it.

Just my 0.02 cents.

[quaxo]

I quit getting stuff from GOTD. Lately, I've been getting virus hits from their downloads on Avast!, Norton, and Kaspersky. (Not all running on the same computer of course.)

It doesn't happen with all of their downloads, but it does with enough that leads me to question their practices.

[patio]

I never use it personally...
Usually if someone sends me a good one i contact the Author's of the software for a freebie...
They don't all say yes...but a good % does.

[evilfantasy]

I don't appreciate my post being edited without notice. I didn't link to any SPAM website. only mentione *SPAM URL* and nobody can say for 100% certain they are doing anything wrong as I pointed out in my reply.

Edit: WTH. If not logged in ypu see *SPAM LINK* on certain key words/links if not logged in? I don't like that at all either. I'm not a spammer but it sure looks like I am being made out to be one.

[Allan]

I don't see any edits EF?

[evilfantasy]

I edited the post.

New topic here: http://www.computerhope.com/forum/index.php/topic,134746.0.html