Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Open Source TAK encoder (Read 19482 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #75 –
Quote from: mycroft on
I applaud you, you are extraordinary real conspiracy theorist.
I have all data with me of Mr. Beck TAK full history of changes with me and also full leaks of computer files.
What a dump.
Gonna use it for my Open Source TAK encoder.

Trying to figure out if it's a joke or something else. I don't dabble in these conspiracy (hey, there's piracy in there, interesting) theories.
Also, you didn't answer on how encoder was made. Could you give some more explanation on how did you do it?
TAPE LOADING ERROR

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #76 –
Quote from: ktf on
I think it is very hard to draw a line on what can be protected and what cannot be protected without having a fairly expensive system in place like patents are.
I certainly agree. I'm talking about intellectual property as a moral concept, not a legal one. We allow people to patent their ideas, because we believe that inventors should be able to control their inventions, just as artists should be able to control their art.

If you believe in the base concept that undergirds the intellectual property system, then you would refrain from using somebody else's work without permission, even if the law allows you to do so. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

Quote from: ktf on
You would have to draw a line somewhere. Complex and inventive algorithms like what TAK uses would be protected, and very simple ideas like 'the wheel' should not be. But where to draw the line?
The place to draw the line seems to be pretty clear when it comes to computer software: if the author did not release the source code, then you don't have the author's permission to copy the invention. Can you legally reverse engineer the software as long as you don't use stolen source code? Yes. Is it morally permissible to do so? If you believe that authors have the right to control their work, then probably not, at least if the author is still working on the project. Once an author abandons a project, he's much less likely to be displeased if somebody creates an unsanctioned implementation.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #77 –
Remember there is also copyright law, not only patent law. Also, I just found a EU directive (applying to my limited knowledge since TBeck, as TAK's rightholder, is a EU citizen):

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024&qid=1694249550777

I'm not a lawyer, but reading Article 6 - specially Section 2 - of that directive, I would, in mycroft's place, thoroughly reconsider releasing to the public (GitHub, Gitlab, or whatever) the source code obtained/developed as a result of reverse engineering. The keyword seems to be "achieving interoperability", leading to - as I understand it - the key question: "Does the discussed open-source TAK encoder fix an interoperability issue - and nothing else! and is there even such an issue? - which cannot be fixed by any other means (e.g., asking TBeck to fix said issue himself, or writing one's own TAK encoder from scratch without reverse engineering TBeck's "reference" encoder, ...), given that TBeck, up to last month, was still actively developing/improving his work?

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #78 –
YOU CAN NOT STOP ME!!!
Please remove my account from this forum.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #79 –
ARRR!

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #80 –
Quote from: mycroft on
YOU CAN NOT STOP ME!!!
That's as may be - however respect is earned, and releasing an open source version (very likely, from what's been said in the thread before now) based on a code leak (i.e. not a clean-room version), does not earn respect, IMO at least.

Whether HA would be happy to provide a platform for (likely) plagiarism remains to be seen.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #82 –
Quote from: mycroft on
YOU CAN NOT STOP ME!!!
Time to grow up? Why this bad attitude? What are you trying to achieve? Are you a drama queen?  :o

@TBeck

Please ignore this guy. He's probably just a troll having a bad day. His behavior is not normal.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #83 –
Quote from: mycroft on
YOU CAN NOT STOP ME!!!
Sure we cannot, but would you allow reason to slow you down for a little?  Reason, and maybe a slice of human empathy/sensitivity?

Even for your own sake?  TAK's claim to fame isn't that it is a big player, it is that it achieved performance we (or at least many of us) didn't even think of as feasible.
I wouldn't want to be the guy who killed that work through some kind of medvjeđa usluga (did I get Bärendienst right in your language?)

It isn't unlikely that HA is where TAK has most of its fanbase, which you are by now about to alienate completely with what will be perceived a hostile takeover.
Not only may you kill the project, but also the user base, if they get enough of a foul taste over this. 


Instead, what if you were willing to hold it and communicate a bit different than you have done here - maybe for example by offering your source to TBeck for review, before letting it loose on the internet?
Then maybe - I am not speaking for others, but it wouldn't hurt to suggest it - you might have contributed constructively to TAK. For one thing, it could use a Matroska profile too, considering how it out-performs the competition on 5.1 material (which often comes with video) - so sure, there would be more constructive ways. 
And if TBeck would/did consider compatibility-breaking changes: ffmpeg might contribute to giving a TAK3 a push it could use to supersede TAK2.  Hypothetically, at least.


That ship may have already have sailed (and sunk) - but in case it even after your posts of today has not, and you are willing to let common sense stop you for long enough ...?


Take it from someone who definitely thinks (cf. Reply #1) that a FOSS TAK is a good thing. But not this way.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #84 –
I'm BEING 100% censored here. So time to leave.
Please remove my account from this forum.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #85 –
Reply #39 over again. No, you are not "100%" censored - if so, the thread would have gone already.

I have called on you to reconsider your position in view of new information. I mean, the moment you get to know more, you act on that, right? Most of us here are nerds enough to understand the value of that concept, so ... are you?
I am sure you will get the microphone to explain, as long as you keep to the matter at hand rather than looking up swear words over mere disagreement.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #86 –
Disagreement is now equivalent to censorship, apparently. ::)

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #87 –
The tantrum that is generated when perceived glory is slowly turning into infamy.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #88 –
The FFmpeg project has a Code of Conduct. Obviously it is not about patents, licenses and copyright, but about ... conduct.
Quoting the whole thing, all (de-)emphasis mine:

Quote
Be friendly and respectful towards others and third parties. Treat others the way you yourself want to be treated.

Be considerate. Not everyone shares the same viewpoint and priorities as you do. Different opinions and interpretations help the project. Looking at issues from a different perspective assists development.

Do not assume malice for things that can be attributed to incompetence. Even if it is malice, it’s rarely good to start with that as initial assumption.

Stay friendly even if someone acts contrarily. Everyone has a bad day once in a while. If you yourself have a bad day or are angry then try to take a break and reply once you are calm and without anger if you have to.

Try to help other team members and cooperate if you can.

The goal of software development is to create technical excellence, not for any individual to be better and "win" against the others. Large software projects are only possible and successful through teamwork.

If someone struggles do not put them down. Give them a helping hand instead and point them in the right direction.

Finally, keep in mind the immortal words of Bill and Ted, "Be excellent to each other."

The Code of Conduct is governed by a Community Committee which can, in the course of enforcing it, remove privileges.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #89 –
Quote from: mycroft on
I'm BEING 100% censored here. So time to leave.
I would suggest that, if you return, you refamiliarise yourself with this forum's ToS.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #90 –
Which exact rules in ToS did I break?
Please remove my account from this forum.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #91 –
Given the deletion of (at least) two posts it's pretty obvious, when reading the rules, which rule was broken.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #92 –
This entire discussion is surreal.

It is a major boon to any format to have two independent implementations, especially of the decoder. Having at least a mostly-working proof-of-concept second decoder implementation is often seen as a must before any kind of real adoption of a format.

Attempting to write a second implementation of an existing format is not theft, it is not harassment, it is not abuse, it is not rude, it is not illegal, it is simply a reasonable technical goal for someone to set themselves.

There's no legal, moral, or even "social convention-al" reason why someone writing a second implementation would be required to prostrate themselves at the feet of the writer of the original implementation, contacting them repeatedly over the course of years to humbly beg for their pontifical blessing.

Some kind of contact could be nice, to cultivate a sense of community, but not required. Sounds like mycroft made some kind of attempt at one point many years ago.

Almost all of us rely daily on things that would not exist without reverse engineering. If you've ever run DOS or Windows on something that wasn't an IBM PC actually sold by IBM Corporation, you were only able to do so because people reverse engineered the PC BIOS. If you've ever opened a Microsoft .DOC in any program other than MS Word, or any other word processing, spreadsheet, or presentation file in any program besides the originator of the format, that worked due to reverse engineering. If you've ever used shared files on a network drive, at least one machine in the network was running Windows, and at least one wasn't, you almost certainly relied on the years of reverse engineering of the SMB protocol done by the SAMBA team.

None of those groups obtained permission from the originators before working on their clean-room implementations.

If it weren't for people who reverse engineer relatively obscure media and document formats, a lot of content from the last seventy years would simply be lost.

I appreciate TBeck's achievements. I understand he is going through a hard time and has legitimate fears about people abusing leaked versions of his copyrighted code. That doesn't seem like a sufficient reason for the histrionics on display here. Jeano and Porcus, I'm going to call you in particular out for unreasonable reactions here as well.

For all I know, it's possible that mycroft doesn't have the promised working implementation and was merely trolling, or that he does have one and it's illegally based on leaked code, or that there's some other reason this would never be the boon one would hope for from a second implementation.

But the only thing there's any actual evidence of in this thread is this: someone came to HydrogenAudio with what he thought was good news about something he had to offer, immediately faced all kinds of unreasonable accusations about driving the poor author of TAK to suicide by his awful, horrible, inhuman, inexcusable deed of trying to write a piece of interoperable software, understandably got upset at the reaction he was getting, wrote a couple bad replies, and has decided that HydrogenAudio is a hostile community he should not contribute to.

This is not a moment for anyone here to be proud of.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #93 –
I have to agree in part now (wrote my post while this new one came in). I have to say, after reading the beginning of this thread again, which is concerned with reverse engineering, code theft, and copyright at many (most?) places: no evidence of any of that has been presented yet. And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't FFmpeg contain source code for TAK decoding, i.e., a description - in source code form - of TAK's bitstream syntax (of the current version, of course) is publicly available, and maybe even a textual description on TBeck's web page?

So mycroft, sorry if that has been asked before, but: what kind of encoder are you planning to release exactly? One which you wrote from scratch based on the current FFmpeg decoder source? And how is its compression performance and speed when compared against TBeck's reference encoder?

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #94 –
Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on
I have to agree in part now (wrote my post while this new one came in). I have to say, after reading the beginning of this thread again, which is concerned with reverse engineering, code theft, and copyright at many (most?) places: no evidence of any of that has been presented yet. And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't FFmpeg contain source code for TAK decoding, i.e., a description - in source code form - of TAK's bitstream syntax (of the current version, of course) is publicly available, and maybe even a textual description on TBeck's web page?
Most of the time i try to stay away from this thread but now I need to clarify something:

I have not published any source code or description regarding TAKs codec format, only about it's container format. Therefore the FFmpeg decoder could not have been written without knowledge obtained through reverse engineering. And who wrote the FFmpeg decoder?

That's not to say I'm not glad about the existence of the FFmpeg decoder.  But that's a different case.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #95 –
Quote from: jensend on
...
This is not a moment for anyone here to be proud of.
Well, I hope those who didn't first feign understanding and then decry me and my situation, who don't believe that anyone who gets rich (in sense of fame) of the work of others and then gives gifts to others is a Robin Hood, will continue to find that they acted appropriately.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #96 –
It is cringey to watch this spectacle. You protect this source code of yours as some gem and stopping short for almost suing, or at least, accusing of anyone daring to "inverse engineer" you irrelevant format. I give a monkeys of your format to be honest, but just painful to see this thread and the folks dancing around you as if you invented a perpetuum mobile. I do not even understand why people bother. You compress 1% better than FLAC, but your stuff is not compatible with anything... If I were ffmpeg I would drop the support right now and just see you get stuffed. You should have be thankful that some people cared about you irrelevant format.

Pathetic.

Triza

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #97 –
Quote from: TBeck on
Well, I hope those who didn't first feign understanding and then decry me and my situation, who don't believe that anyone who gets rich (in sense of fame) of the work of others and then gives gifts to others is a Robin Hood, will continue to find that they acted appropriately.
I didn't feign anything. I didn't decry your situation but rather your behavior. You insulting me in this fashion for no reason directly confirms what I just said about your behavior.

The OpenOffice people who worked on import filters for uncommon document and graphics formats are not thieves "getting rich off the work of others." The people behind libavformat are not thieves "getting rich off the work of others." I see zero evidence thus far to suggest this situation is some kind of unique atrocity.

If you have any evidence to support a claim that this is grounded in a breach of your copyright, please bring it forward. Other than that insinuation, what exactly are you upset about?

I too have dealt with chronic disease, and have had projects and goals that helped me keep going when life was not going at all according to plan. But someone trying to make something interoperable with your software is not some terrible insult, and lashing out at others for imagined offenses is not going to make you feel better.

Triza, you're not helping by calling TAK irrelevant (just because it may never be mainstream doesn't preclude its being of real value) or by amping up incivil personal attacks. We need people to start acting like rational adults here.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #98 –
Quote from: jensend on
Quote from: TBeck on
Well, I hope those who didn't first feign understanding and then decry me and my situation, who don't believe that anyone who gets rich (in sense of fame) of the work of others and then gives gifts to others is a Robin Hood, will continue to find that they acted appropriately.
I didn't feign anything. I didn't decry your situation but rather your behavior. You insulting me in this fashion for no reason directly confirms what I just said about your behavior.
What behavior exactly?

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #99 –
Quote from: TBeck on
I have not published any source code or description regarding TAKs codec format, only about it's container format. Therefore the FFmpeg decoder could not have been written without knowledge obtained through reverse engineering. And who wrote the FFmpeg decoder?
Thanks for the clarification. According to https://ffmpeg.org/doxygen/trunk/tak_8h_source.html, a "Paul Mahol", in 2012. Don' know if that's mycroft, though. If not, what's he to blame for? So, that's one more question mycroft could answer in addition to those I asked previously, to shed some light on the "issue".

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.