What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

[TedJ]

A couple of things to keep in mind.

1. Vidcoder is based on HandBrake with several modifications that often don't make any sense, mod1 dimensions being a prime example.
2. Support for Vidcoder is near non-existent, with the author often referring people back here.

I and others have already mentioned this on several occasions, but it bears repeating: You are NOT a customer! The word customer implies a transaction has taken place wherein you have a contract with the developers to provide goods or services, and this is simply not true. The developers contribute to HandBrake because it interests them or fulfils their needs; the fact that millions of users also find the application useful is incidental.

That being said, if Vidcoder meets your requirements then feel free to use it. Just be aware that we will not offer support for it on these forums.

[Pawnslinger]

Okay, I guess I missed something. But, on the face of it, I disagree with the previous message. I am not a "paying" customer, but I am a customer. I became a customer the moment I began to use the product offerred here -- or would you claim HandBrake is not a product?

If someone is fulfilling a personal need, they don't offer the program for others to use. This is important, because like any product there are implied liabilities attached to providing it for public consumption. As a programmer myself, not associated with HandBrake, except as a customer, I am painfully aware of these real world problems.

[Deleted User 11865]

I became a customer the moment I began to use the product offerred here -- or would you claim HandBrake is not a product?

Not sure about HandBrake being a product, but being a user, even of a product, doesn't necessarily make you a customer:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/customer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
https://trac.handbrake.fr/browser/tags/0.9.8/COPYING

[Pawnslinger]

I became a customer the moment I began to use the product offerred here -- or would you claim HandBrake is not a product?

Not sure about HandBrake being a product, but being a user, even of a product, doesn't necessarily make you a customer:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/customer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
https://trac.handbrake.fr/browser/tags/0.9.8/COPYING

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I just read the first definition, from Webster, and I will accept it. Basically, it says that a customer is one who purchases a product. Simple. But I don't believe that a "purchase" requires the transfer of funds. That is what we differ on. What is a "purchase". I think my definition of a purchase would require the user to legally acquire the product from the manufacturer -- in this case, under the GPL license (which is a contract, despite what the previous poster wrote). Many products are provided without a direct cost... but I would still claim their acquisition is a "purchase".

And, product liability is a serious matter. Despite the terms of the GPL, the manufacturer can be held to account for product defects... especially if they are found to have damaged the user (if you wish). I was sued, myself, because some "customer" claimed that my product contained a trojan that attacked his system, when it was installed. I denied the claim, of course, but the cost of defending myself was non-trivial, both in emotional and financial terms. Justice is not free.

[Deleted User 13735]

The sense of entitlement being tossed about by nonpaying, self-annointed "customers" is making me sick.
They have no more investment, no more ownership than I do; only a magical claim to all of the authority, and none of the responsibility.
Either offer your patch(es) for the developers' consideration, or stop whining. You can't have it both ways.
Until your patch has been accepted, I have actually done something nice for you; although the lack of interest in it here has long since convinced me there is quite another agenda at work . . .
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/20519276/Handb ... ulator.xls

[Pawnslinger]

The sense of entitlement being tossed about by nonpaying, self-annointed "customers" is making me sick.
They have no more investment, no more ownership than I do; only a magical claim to all of the authority, and none of the responsibility.
Either offer your patch(es) for the developers' consideration, or stop whining. You can't have it both ways.
Until your patch has been accepted, I have actually done something nice for you; although the lack of interest in it here has long since convinced me there is quite another agenda at work . . .
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/20519276/Handb ... ulator.xls

Well, I don't think any user (or customer) owns HandBrake. It is licensed to users under the GPL, ownership is retained by the copyright holder. As I said before, perhaps I missed something, but all I have read is about user complaints and user suggestions. If the owners of HandBrake do not welcome such, then clearly this forum should be closed, to prevent unwanted participation here. I have seen it happen before -- where the owners of a forum did not desire the comments received from the user community, and took the forum private. It could happen again. There is nothing that forces the owners to provide this forum.

[JohnAStebbins]

You can believe yourself to be the queen of England if you like. We won't be treating you as such however. So how about you let go of your indignation and accept the terms we offer (basically none ). You are more than welcome to go elsewhere if you don't like them.

[Deleted User 13735]

"There is nothing that forces the owners to provide this forum."

Or the "product."
Think about it. If enough people continue to second-guess and browbeat the developers over their decisions, eventually those developers will lose interest and go elsewhere. Or sell out to the likes of Ashampoo or Nero or Broderbund. Maybe, just maybe, a little respect and appreciation for their efforts would seem in order. After all, they are human beings who are working for themselves, not for you.

Many commercial broadcasters are already using Handbrake because of its speed and quality, an oasis in the tempest of ENG, so maybe that's the direction Handbrake should go. How "cheated" would you malcontents feel if Handbrake 1.0 was suddenly $2,500 a pop?

I'll repeat what I've already said 'til I'm blue in the face. Any legitimate content producer encoding for streaming or download would never use such an option; and for the home user, well, TB are cheap. If the agenda is file size alone, then that agenda is singularly suspect.

As for me, I have had quite enough of the profoundly entitled.

[Pawnslinger]

You can believe yourself to be the queen of England if you like. We won't be treating you as such however. So how about you let go of your indignation and accept the terms we offer (basically none ). You are more than welcome to go elsewhere if you don't like them.

Are you one of the owners of HandBrake? Inquiring minds would like to know.

[Deleted User 13735]

Are you one of the owners of HandBrake? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Well, if you get banned, you'll have your answer, won't you?

[Pawnslinger]

Are you one of the owners of HandBrake? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Well, if you manage to get yourself banned this evening, you'll have your answer, won't you?

Okay. If I get banned, so be it. But at least, perhaps, would someone please tell me why I should be banned? What have I written that is so controversial?

[Pawnslinger]

"There is nothing that forces the owners to provide this forum."

Or the "product."
Think about it. If enough people continue to second-guess and browbeat the developers over their decisions, eventually those developers will lose interest and go elsewhere. Or sell out to the likes of Ashampoo or Nero or Broderbund. Maybe, just maybe, a little respect and appreciation for their efforts would seem in order. After all, they are human beings who are working for themselves, not for you.

Many commercial broadcasters are already using Handbrake because of its speed and quality, an oasis in the tempest of ENG, so maybe that's the direction Handbrake should go. How "cheated" would you malcontents feel if Handbrake 1.0 was suddenly $2,500 a pop?

I'll repeat what I've already said 'til I'm blue in the face. Any legitimate content producer encoding for streaming or download would never use such an option; and for the home user, well, TB are cheap. If the agenda is file size alone, then that agenda is singularly suspect.

As for me, I have had quite enough of the profoundly entitled.

First, I am not a malcontent. Second, if the owners of HandBrake decided to charge for it, then I would wish them well. If I could afford the price asked, I would pay for it. For me, the issue is not file size. It is quality at a reasonable file size. Personally, I like HandBrake as it is, and I agree with the removal of the Target Size option. So you are catching me a little off guard here, by agreeing with me!

[GregiBoy]

Guys, how about giving it a break?

I don't know about others but I am getting sick of this.

[jamiemlaw]

i need target size

Why?

@Pawnglinger: so if you go to xkcd.com and read the comics, are you a customer of xkcd?

[JohnAStebbins]

You can believe yourself to be the queen of England if you like. We won't be treating you as such however. So how about you let go of your indignation and accept the terms we offer (basically none ). You are more than welcome to go elsewhere if you don't like them.

Are you one of the owners of HandBrake? Inquiring minds would like to know.

"Owner" doesn't apply. None of the current developers were involved in the inception of HandBrake. The original developer (note singular) moved on to greener pastures long ago. Others saw an abandoned FOSS project that corresponded with their interests and revived it. There really are no owners in the sense that you imply. There are many contributors that hold copyright over their contributions. If *anyone* wanted to do something like change the copyright on HandBrake, *all* the contributors, no matter how small their contribution, would have to be hunted down and their permission obtained. For all practical purposes, this would be impossible since there have probably been hundreds of minor contributors over the years and no one keeps track of where they have gone. Since none of us has the authority to do something as simple as change the copyright, in a very real sense *none* of us owns HandBrake.

[JohnAStebbins]

But at least, perhaps, would someone please tell me why I should be banned? What have I written that is so controversial?

You wouldn't be banned for a discussion like this. Look around the forum and you'll see lots of much more unfriendly discussion. Lively discussion happens a lot around here

But your request/question has been asked and answered soooo many times that we are all very weary of it. When a topic is wearing us down, we do tend to lock them.

[Pawnslinger]

But at least, perhaps, would someone please tell me why I should be banned? What have I written that is so controversial?

You wouldn't be banned for a discussion like this. Look around the forum and you'll see lots of much more unfriendly discussion. Lively discussion happens a lot around here

But your request/question has been asked and answered soooo many times that we are all very weary of it. When a topic is wearing us down, we do tend to lock them.

I truly believe you have me confused with someone else. I have no request or question. So it can't have been answered so many times. In fact, I am totally confused by your responses to me. What are you talking about?? I am truly and honestly confused. And I am glad to hear that I wouldn't be banned... for something I am not doing.

If I am guilty of something, I guess it was to comment on a message entered by someone else - not by you. That person made the assertion that the users of HandBrake are not customers, and that acquiring HandBrake, no contract is involved. Both of those assertions are untrue, in my opinion. HandBrake is acquired by users under the GPL. That is a contract. And whether we call users customers or not is a pretty thin symantic argument. I guess it could go either way. But this is clearly a forum, a public forum, provided by an owner (someone pays the bills, right?), and what is written here are just opinions of users of the program. We, the users and developers, should not get so upset over opinions. That is my opinion... I guess I could be wrong -- it is open to debate.

[Pawnslinger]

You can believe yourself to be the queen of England if you like. We won't be treating you as such however. So how about you let go of your indignation and accept the terms we offer (basically none ). You are more than welcome to go elsewhere if you don't like them.

Are you one of the owners of HandBrake? Inquiring minds would like to know.

"Owner" doesn't apply. None of the current developers were involved in the inception of HandBrake. The original developer (note singular) moved on to greener pastures long ago. Others saw an abandoned FOSS project that corresponded with their interests and revived it. There really are no owners in the sense that you imply. There are many contributors that hold copyright over their contributions. If *anyone* wanted to do something like change the copyright on HandBrake, *all* the contributors, no matter how small their contribution, would have to be hunted down and their permission obtained. For all practical purposes, this would be impossible since there have probably been hundreds of minor contributors over the years and no one keeps track of where they have gone. Since none of us has the authority to do something as simple as change the copyright, in a very real sense *none* of us owns HandBrake.

Then the GPL does not apply. You should remove it. In my opinion, the GPL is meaningless in this situation, it was created with the idea that there was someone or some company that held a copyright... and wished to retain the copyright, but distribute the product for the benefit of others. In my opinion, if what you describe is true, then the GPL is totally meaningless in this context.

But surely someone pays the bills? Someone provides this forum? Someone administers the project? So there must be someone who is (or considers himself) the proprietor. Even if all decisions are made democratically, the buck still stops some place. Or more accurately, the buck comes from someplace!

[Pawnslinger]

i need target size

Why?

@Pawnglinger: so if you go to xkcd.com and read the comics, are you a customer of xkcd?

Of course.

And I am not "asdaff". Whoever that is. For the record, I never have used any version of HandBrake that had a Target Size. So I am a user that doesn't really understand this argument. I never used Target Size, and I don't miss it. I like HandBrake just like it is. And for my opinion, the people who want something different, like customers always DO, they should find a different product that suites their needs. Manufacturers of a product always reserve the right to make changes, and customers likewise, they reserve the right to vote with their feet. Before HandBrake, I used a different program, that will be nameless, but one that didn't fulfill my needs as well as HandBrake. I found a better tool, so I am using it. I paid over $100 for the previous program that I replaced with HandBrake. So cost is not the key for me... function, that is the real thing.

[Deleted User 11865]

Are you one of the owners of HandBrake? Inquiring minds would like to know.

"Owner" doesn't apply. None of the current developers were involved in the inception of HandBrake. The original developer (note singular) moved on to greener pastures long ago. Others saw an abandoned FOSS project that corresponded with their interests and revived it. There really are no owners in the sense that you imply. There are many contributors that hold copyright over their contributions. If *anyone* wanted to do something like change the copyright on HandBrake, *all* the contributors, no matter how small their contribution, would have to be hunted down and their permission obtained. For all practical purposes, this would be impossible since there have probably been hundreds of minor contributors over the years and no one keeps track of where they have gone. Since none of us has the authority to do something as simple as change the copyright, in a very real sense *none* of us owns HandBrake.

Then the GPL does not apply. You should remove it. In my opinion, the GPL is meaningless in this situation, it was created with the idea that there was someone or some company that held a copyright... and wished to retain the copyright, but distribute the product for the benefit of others. In my opinion, if what you describe is true, then the GPL is totally meaningless in this context.

But surely someone pays the bills? Someone provides this forum? Someone administers the project? So there must be someone who is (or considers himself) the proprietor. Even if all decisions are made democratically, the buck still stops some place. Or more accurately, the buck comes from someplace!

Right, HandBrake is the only FOSS project where copyright is not held by a single entity, but rather by several people/entities… or is it?

And you can't just use third-party GPL projects and then release under another license… at the very least, HandBrake's licensing terms have to be GPL-compatible.

[Pawnslinger]

After what I have learned reading thiese messages this morning, I would say that HandBrake is public domain.

[JohnAStebbins]

Then the GPL does not apply. You should remove it. In my opinion, the GPL is meaningless in this situation, it was created with the idea that there was someone or some company that held a copyright... and wished to retain the copyright, but distribute the product for the benefit of others. In my opinion, if what you describe is true, then the GPL is totally meaningless in this context.

But surely someone pays the bills? Someone provides this forum? Someone administers the project? So there must be someone who is (or considers himself) the proprietor. Even if all decisions are made democratically, the buck still stops some place. Or more accurately, the buck comes from someplace!

Huh, what?! Are you a lawyer? Do you have a close personal relationship with Richard Stallman? If the answer to either of these is no, then you don't have the necessary credentials to make such a proclamation. Of coarse you did say "in my opinion", so here's another opinion for you. The GPL was designed to protect a piece of collective work from being misappropriated by some entity and used without that entity contributing back to the original work. A copyright, does not have to protect an individuals right to ownership. In the case of the GPL, it insures the continued survival of a piece of work that has no owner.

Regarding administration. Yes, there are administrators and other volunteers who help in various aspects. Bills are paltry and are supported by the small amount of ad revenue generated by these forums. Who these people are changes as people come and go. If a maintainer of of a critical resource (like the forums) decides to leave, one of the other current participants in the project steps up to fill the gap or we solicit for new blood. In the case of decisions about project direction, we usually come to a consensus through discussion and persuasion. But if we ever came to an impasse, there would be a vote.

Regarding bucks, as I mentioned, the bills are paltry. HandBrake does not accept donations and does not charge for software or support. Any necessary hardware has historically been provided by one of the contributors to the project.

HandBrake is a hobby. We all have lives and jobs outside the HandBrake sphere and most of us can afford to spend only a few hours a week on this effort. If it required the resources of a business, none of us would be here. It just wouldn't be fun any more.

[JohnAStebbins]

After what I have learned reading thiese messages this morning, I would say that HandBrake is public domain.

Did you not understand anything I said. Making HandBrake public domain would require changing the licence. And you can not do that without the permission of all copyright holders period.

[Pawnslinger]

After what I have learned reading thiese messages this morning, I would say that HandBrake is public domain.

Did you not understand anything I said. Making HandBrake public domain would require changing the licence. And you can not do that without the permission of all copyright holders period.

You are right.

One could not make HandBrake public domain. No argument here.

But, I believe that HandBrake has fallen into the public domain. Because there is no one to defend it. De facto, public domain.

[Pawnslinger]

Then the GPL does not apply. You should remove it. In my opinion, the GPL is meaningless in this situation, it was created with the idea that there was someone or some company that held a copyright... and wished to retain the copyright, but distribute the product for the benefit of others. In my opinion, if what you describe is true, then the GPL is totally meaningless in this context.

But surely someone pays the bills? Someone provides this forum? Someone administers the project? So there must be someone who is (or considers himself) the proprietor. Even if all decisions are made democratically, the buck still stops some place. Or more accurately, the buck comes from someplace!

Huh, what?! Are you a lawyer? Do you have a close personal relationship with Richard Stallman? If the answer to either of these is no, then you don't have the necessary credentials to make such a proclamation. Of coarse you did say "in my opinion", so here's another opinion for you. The GPL was designed to protect a piece of collective work from being misappropriated by some entity and used without that entity contributing back to the original work. A copyright, does not have to protect an individuals right to ownership. In the case of the GPL, it insures the continued survival of a piece of work that has no owner.

Regarding administration. Yes, there are administrators and other volunteers who help in various aspects. Bills are paltry and are supported by the small amount of ad revenue generated by these forums. Who these people are changes as people come and go. If a maintainer of of a critical resource (like the forums) decides to leave, one of the other current participants in the project steps up to fill the gap or we solicit for new blood. In the case of decisions about project direction, we usually come to a consensus through discussion and persuasion. But if we ever came to an impasse, there would be a vote.

Regarding bucks, as I mentioned, the bills are paltry. HandBrake does not accept donations and does not charge for software or support. Any necessary hardware has historically been provided by one of the contributors to the project.

HandBrake is a hobby. We all have lives and jobs outside the HandBrake sphere and most of us can afford to spend only a few hours a week on this effort. If it required the resources of a business, none of us would be here. It just wouldn't be fun any more.

Here is the problem. With no one to defend the copyright, a work will fall into the public domain. This happened to another program that I use... a chess engine. It was written and released under the GPL. Someone took it and made slight cosmetic modifications, and released a successful commercial chess program. The thief made a lot of moeny. It was a big controversy for a long time in the chess engine forums. But no one would step forward to protect the copyright (or enforce the GPL). Normally the copyright holder would do that, but in this case, he couldn't... for whatever reason.

I am not a lawyer. I am a programmer, that has paid my fair share of lawyer's fees. My first one was about 30 years ago, when I paid $3,000 for a 1 page letter to be written. Man, did I feel ripped off.