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 19154 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #50 –
Quote from: rutra80 on
If it's not zealotry it's plain piracy and theft.

If this refers to reverse-engineering, then that statement is just plain wrong. In major jurisdictions, reverse-engineering is allowed to achieve interoperability:

For the US, the Digitial Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) should apply:

Quote
REVERSE ENGINEERING .—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained
the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

In the European Union, Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs should apply:

Quote
Article 6
Decompilation
1.   The authorisation of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) those acts are performed by the licensee or by another person having a right to use a copy of a program, or on their behalf by a person authorised to do so;
(b) the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been readily available to the persons referred to in point (a); and
(c) those acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary in order to achieve interoperability.

The general spirit seems to be that as long as you aim at interoperability, obtained the software legally and there's no other source of information, it's usually fine to analyze closed software to be able to develop your own implementation (it's obviously not okay to decompile, reconstruct the original source and then re-release that).

And, IMO, that's a very good thing for users. I very much think that users should have the right to observe what instructions 3rd-party software executes on their computers. It also has clear benefits to be allowed to reverse-engineer data formats - after all, while the format might be proprietary, the data (hopefully) belongs to the user.

In short:
  • Of course Thomas can keep his source code closed. That's 100% his decision.
  • For interoperability, copyright law usually allows analyzing how any given data format and/or programs works. The process of learning how things work might even involve decompilation steps if the information cannot be obtained otherwise.
  • 3rd-party implementations of the TAK bitstream format are most likely perfectly fine, as long they are original implementations and not reconstructed from the original source.

As a side note, I'm surprised by some of the strong wording in this thread - talking about "OSS zealots", "theft" etc. without a hint of actual wrongdoing makes this thread an irritating read. Foul-mouthing open source in a forum hosted with open source forum software, depending on open technology such as IP, discussing a lot of open source audio software and most likely displayed in an open source browser rendering software doesn't make immediate sense to me.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #51 –
I still think "Don't be evil" (I mean, literally so - not as in "be Google") deserves more consideration and legalese less, but anyway:

Quote from: ktf on
I have little knowledge on this subject. I based my comment on this discussion: https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/60/is-reverse-engineering-and-using-parts-of-a-closed-source-application-legal
FWIW or not,  the posting that referred to an EU directive, specifically mentioned one that - at the time of that discussion - was already repealed.
In the English version of the current directive, Article 6 provides for decompilation without author's authorization, for interoperability purposes.

I don't know whether or not this particular directive text will be applied directly (directives are in principle directed towards member states, "make a law in accordance with this!", but sometimes they turn out as much more).  I do not know whether a relevant court will recognize any definition between decompilation and [other means of] reverse engineering. I do not know to what extent a relevant court will take absence of outright permission to imply "unauthorized", or absence of outright restriction to be permission -  IA still NAL.
Anyway, I have linked to some considerations on German law from someone who apparently is.


And again ....
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=rsRXZ1afhLw

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #53 –
It has been three weeks now, I think it would be OK to hear from OP what he has to say about all this.
Error 404; signature server not available.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #54 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Hence LAME was published as an educational project - how to make MP3 better and document it.
Would there be any licensing issues if this TAK encoder were released in a similar fashion?
Allegari nihil et allegatum non probare, paria sunt.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #55 –
Quote from: ssjkakaroto on
Would there be any licensing issues if this TAK encoder were released in a similar fashion?
Maybe.

The licensing issues with MP3 were patents, not copyright. The MP3 encoders were not based on any copyrighted code, so the code itself was free to distribute, but a compiled binary would most likely infringe on one or more MP3 patents and therefore be illegal to distribute.

The potential issue with TAK is copyright, not patents. If the open-source TAK encoder is based on disassembling TBeck's TAK encoder, it may contain sequences of code copied from TBeck's encoder. There are nearly infinite possibilities for choosing how to compress audio into a valid TAK file, so an open-source TAK encoder that happens to use exactly the same algorithms as TBeck's TAK encoder would be a very unlikely coincidence.

For comparison, there's only one correct way to decode a TAK file. It's hard to argue copyright infringement has occurred when it's not possible for any other code to work.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #57 –
Why not leave the man alone? It's his creation... just let him be.
If he achieved the best compression in a lossless codec, it's his merit.
I recognize it, but a few MBs less won't halt my life from using FLAC or WavPack or Monkey's Audio.
I don't use TAK, but I think we should respect what the creator feels about it.
We have so many other lossless codecs. Sorry, I had to say this here because I never imagined TBeck so upset in this forum.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #58 –
Quote from: itisljar on
It has been three weeks now, I think it would be OK to hear from OP what he has to say about all this.
I'm pretty sure I saw the OP reply, but I think a mod has removed that reply since.

Quote from: Aleron Ives on
Quote from: Soap on
The concept of intellectual property does not protect ideas.
If it doesn't protect ideas, then what does it protect?
A work of art. So, you are free to copy the idea, not the work of art. If you want to protect an idea, you need a patent.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #59 –
Quote from: ktf on
I'm pretty sure I saw the OP reply, but I think a mod has removed that reply since.

I also think I saw something, but it was in fighting tone. Three weeks had passed, and we are presumably grownup people. I'd really like to know how this open source version was made.
But as the silence continues, I am thinking that mr. Beck is right, and that it was made from (somehow) stolen code.
Error 404; signature server not available.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #60 –
Quote from: ktf on
I'm pretty sure I saw the OP reply, but I think a mod has removed that reply since.
They did - and a reply of mine to their post was removed (as it lacked context after the removal of their post).

People on unsupported platforms are free to express their desire for their platform to be supported - just as the developers are free to note peoples' particular opinions and disregard them as irrelevant, should they so choose to.

The "it *must* be multi-platform or bust" attitude is, at its core, one of unearned entitlement. Sure, it'd be nice to have - but we don't always get what we want, for free in this case.

Same applies to Open source.
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 #61 –
I can live without tak, but if there's a FOSS implementation I can also live with it. Point to the entitlement.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #62 –
Quote from: itisljar on
Quote from: ktf on
I'm pretty sure I saw the OP reply, but I think a mod has removed that reply since.
Quote from: itisljar on
Quote from: ktf on
I'm pretty sure I saw the OP reply, but I think a mod has removed that reply since.

I also think I saw something, but it was in fighting tone. Three weeks had passed, and we are presumably grownup people. I'd really like to know how this open source version was made.
But as the silence continues, I am thinking that mr. Beck is right, and that it was made from (somehow) stolen code.

I also think I saw something, but it was in fighting tone. Three weeks had passed, and we are presumably grownup people. I'd really like to know how this open source version was made.
But as the silence continues, I am thinking that mr. Beck is right, and that it was made from (somehow) stolen code.

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.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #63 –
Quote from: mycroft on
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.
Under what terms did you acquire the "data" and "leaks of computer files"?
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 #64 –
do I understand correctly, that this encoder does not exist in reality?

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #65 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
do I understand correctly, that this encoder does not exist in reality?
The first post reads as follows:
Quote from: mycroft on
In working state. To be released soon.

Says nothing about whether it just produces some kind of TAK file with whatever performance, or disassembles the official binaries.

It might be an idea to hold back the release for a while ...

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #66 –
Quote from: mycroft on
I actually had contacted author of TAK via email back in 2016 regarding bug in decoder that since I have fixed.
Guess what, up to today I never received any reply email, so I at that point completely lost interest in sending any more mails to author of TAK.
You contacted him by e-mail once and gave up after that? Sounds like you did to me. TBeck has frequently been visiting this forum for years. If you really wanted to get in touch with him I'm quite sure he would have replied to your request(s) here. Why not try to communicate a bit better and try to cooperate with him? This is so unnecessary. The way you presented this is disrespectful to his work to say the least. You popped out from the sky with no warning. I understand TBeck's reaction since he didn't seem to know about your plans. Why not work to achieve something great TOGETHER instead of doing it behind his back like this? I'm sure he would cooperate with you if you just behave better.

An open source implementation of TAK would be great, but it's not great without the author's permission. For most people it's not a big deal that the encoder is Windows only. It also works flawlessy under WINE. If you have made the decoding engine better by fixing bugs it's great, but it would be even greater if you let the author know what you're doing first. TAK is HIS baby not yours, you know. ;)

Let's hope you haven't destroyed Mr. Beck's motivation to release further updates to TAK completely now. :'( His upcoming v3.0 release sounds very interesting, by the way. 8)

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #67 –
Quote from: ktf on
A work of art. So, you are free to copy the idea, not the work of art. If you want to protect an idea, you need a patent.
To clarify, I was not asserting that copying TAK would be illegal. As you said, TBeck would have needed to get a patent in order to enjoy legal protections for his work.

I was asserting that if you believe in intellectual property as a concept, then you should also believe in an author's right to control his work, even if he hasn't sought official legal protections for that work. As such, you should frown upon people trying to replicate that work without the author's permission, even if it's technically legal for them to so do.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #68 –
Quote from: Aleron Ives on
Quote from: ktf on
A work of art. So, you are free to copy the idea, not the work of art. If you want to protect an idea, you need a patent.
To clarify, I was not asserting that copying TAK would be illegal.
Sorry, I misread and completely misunderstood what you where saying.

Quote
I was asserting that if you believe in intellectual property as a concept, then you should also believe in an author's right to control his work, even if he hasn't sought official legal protections for that work. As such, you should frown upon people trying to replicate that work without the author's permission, even if it's technically legal for them to so do.
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. The problem is that you protect ideas without such a system, then progress is impossible. The writer of the first song with a structure with verses and a chorus would could claim that structure as an idea, and nobody would be able to write songs with that structure anymore. Or perhaps even simpler ideas. 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?
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #69 –
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?
Error 404; signature server not available.

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #70 –
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 #71 –
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 #72 –
YOU CAN NOT STOP ME!!!

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #73 –
ARRR!

Re: Open Source TAK encoder

Reply #74 –
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)