Slashdot Mirror
RealNetworks Settles Lawsuit With Streambox
sdo1 pointed out this CNet story: "Out of court settlement, but it looks like Real won and Streambox lost. Real keeps it's broadcast format proprietary, and Streambox can't distribute tools that decode the stream for such fair use puposes as time shifting and personal archiving." This is not good news for anyone hoping for commonsense wisdom from the bench when it comes to the provisions of the DMCA. Instead, it looks like this settlement came about in part because "Judge Marsha Pechman ruled that RealNetworks made a strong case that the Streambox VCR could be in violation of the DMCA."
Could we put the DeCSS source in a encrypted zip using a randomly generated password (a simple one) then anyone who want's it can use a zip cracker. The nice thing is that the DMCA legally prevents the MPAA from viewing the contents to ensure that is contains the DeCSS code. Illegally obtained evidence.
Real is a company whose immenent demise at the hands of Microsoft I'm not going to spend much time lamenting.
Their software is generally bloated and buggy, their video format is viciously proprietary and mediocre, and they've got a horrible record on privacy and software invasiveness.
In short, they're a nasty, unpleasant little company, and most importantly, they don't sell any products or services which are not available elsewhere at an improved level for free.
I, for one, will dance on their grave when they're gone.
Zeltar, of no account.
You're absolutely right, someone should mirror This
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Why is this not allowed with a plug-in architecture? If RealNetworks doesn't like it, then they shouldn't have offered the functionality, or should stop everyone from using plug-ins.
;)
More specifically, could someone tell me what StreamBox was doing that was illegal, or is it just that RealNetworks and "The Powers That Be" don't like it, and will therefore make up a reason later...
Actually, Real is probably just jealous because they don't have a name like "Ferret"...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I have seen some code that plays older realaudio files, but that's about it. Also, I don't know a whole lot about audio codecs...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I believe it is, provided it isn't "circumvention" as opposed to just getting a client working.
/dev/audio. In that case, Real does all the circumvention for you. (Shouldn't be too hard to implement, right?)
Like, if you just re-wrote RealPlayer, you should be fine. Just don't save it to a file, because apparently decoding the file format is ok, but converting it isn't.
I know that doesn't make any sense. However, you could probably record everything that goes through
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Read the preceding sentence; if they can't do that for two years (since Oct 1998) then they can't do a lot. 1201(b) looks unclear, but it looks like it attempts to make an exception to that two-year period, but doesn't really say what. 1201(c) says you have to take it up with their librarian. Oh no! :)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
No; you aren't circumventing anything. Their program is writing to your devices, and what you do with that input is your business. Devices are just files.
Any other interpretation of that is insane, so it wouldn't surprise me if it were ruled illegal regardless of sanity, as usual...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
And, even if you are right, apparently they'd have to take it up with a librarian...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Actually, I was wrong: it's even easier.
:)
RealPlayer 7 on Linux uses esd, so just use esdmon to dump whatever input esd gets. Then encode it, it should be 44.1kHz, 16-bit audio by default.
I just dumped the sample sound, now I'll have to grab a decent encoder.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
to Streambox and RealNetworks
about Macrovision;
first off, I don't need to worry about that piece of shit - I have an Apex 600a - secret menu! nya nya! Otherwise it would have been impossible for me to set up my system the way it currently runs; my TV has only ONE input, so I had to route my DVD through my VCR. I had to disable Macrovision for my TV to get an uncorrupted signal - even if I wasn't recording with the VCR! This is complete bullshit -
but you know the other solution the video store suggested to me? For $60, I could buy a special filter to "fix" the signal. Isn't this a copy-protection circumvention device? Funny, the damn thing was made by Sony!
On the Skywalker Ranch where the Storm Trooper Posse says:
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
So that means that the Iraqis and Cubans are laughing their asses off right about now?
On the Skywalker Ranch where the Storm Trooper Posse says:
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
That will definately make a difference.
The name alone is sufficient to damage you politically.
DNA just wants to be free...
I'd much rather say "Streaming Vorbis" instead...
DNA just wants to be free...
Personally, I don't think your involvement with hackers.com would wash very well in the political arena. Keep the day job for now.
There are, however, some very specific things you can do:
DNA just wants to be free...
No, "piracy" will do about as much for advancing Free media as it has for Free software. Approximately nil.
RMS didn't set about illegally distributing software to achieve his goals; instead, he wrote his own software that he could legally distribute in the fashion he desired.
Freely distributable content, voluntarily made by artists, is the only thing that can "save" us.
DNA just wants to be free...
Well, I don't know of that much being worked on. Some amount of Free music, and of course visual artists will put some stuff up on their sites, but the latter is often still relatively restricted.
What I'd really like to see happen is Free animation, film, and other "multimedia" work in particular, as well as written fiction, as well as a simple, consistent, and usable donation system to help support all this.
Since I'm a coder, visual artist, writer, and musician, I'm starting to experiment with as many of these as I can. I've already started a few personal projects -- in the next year or so we'll see if they get anywhere. Real "multimedia" stuff is down the road, though -- the first few items are manga and serial fiction. I have some ideas for implementing a web-based Street Performer-type system, as well.
Hopefully I'll manage to squeeze enough time around school and work to get stuff done, and ideally eventually I'll be able to replace the work bit. :P (at least the school bit will end soon)
What really needs to happen, though, is for multidisciplinary groups to be doing this kind of thing.
Another thing I'd like to see (and that I plan on doing myself) is people releasing their work into the public domain after 14 years (the original copyright term), to combat/protest the current sick situation where nothing substantial has entered the intellectual/cultural commons since World War I...
And yes, I realize all this is untried. I'm not demanding that anyone else do this. Someone has to experiment with this stuff, though, and so that's why I want to put my own time (and to some extent money) where my mouth is.
DNA just wants to be free...
Well, it looks like we're going to be increasingly cut out of legally participating in the current media standards (DVD/CSS, Real, MP3) by software patents and the DMCA.
Worse, this is extending into hardware. We're nearing the point where it will be illegal to write open-source video drivers, because the connection to the monitor is encrypted in a CSS-like fashion [before you call me paranoid, Intel and a group of other corporations are already developing just that and more -- do some research on HDCP, the High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection spec, and its application in e.g. DVI].
The only compelling argument (for most people) against such draconian hardware measures is the existence legitimate Free alternative technologies (and unencumbered content to go with it!). Of all the boats, let's hope we don't miss this one.
All those that can, hit ogg.org and similar projects, and see what you can contribute. Myself, I plan on working on the content side of things.
DNA just wants to be free...
And it certainly costs them money for servers, bandwidth, etc., when people play a video on their own computer and never send or receive any network traffic?
Fuck Slashdot
the DMCA sucks, we all agree. Is there anyone who can suggest a way it might be repealed or overturned? Can we in the slashdot community create and lobby for a bill which will undo the stuff that sucks in the DMCA?
/. community (in the US) can rally behind and pressure lawmakers to pass.
Maybe we should be proposing a peice of legislation that the entire
Just a thought
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Since digital signatures are now legally binding, this petition should have more teeth than before the digital signature law was in effect.
Yeah--one big, gaping hole: the player manufacturers are not producing hardware "that can remove the copy protection on your work. " They are producing hardware that can view your work. There's a big difference.
Well, right now the DVD-CCA is in court attempting to outlaw the livid DVD player, which is software that can only view DVDs, not copy them, so apparently the recording industry disagrees with your viewpoint.
First off, you're splitting hairs. The industry doesn't seem to give a damn about the differences between hardware and software. They consistantly refer to DeCSS as a device.
You've totally missed my point.
Movie Studio A releases DVDs using CSS, a trade-secret, unpatented and uncopyrighted scrambling algorithm.
Player Manufacturer B releases DVD players that can descramble CSS, after signing a contract to obtain those trade secrets.
Next, the trade secret is reverse-engineered, placing it in the public domain. There is NO IP protection for CSS. The MPAA letters do not claim that CSS is a trade secret, or that it is a patent or copyright violation. Their ONLY claim is that DeCSS is an "unlawful circumvention device"
My Company C releases copyrighted DVDs using an unlicensed CSS encoder.
Software Company D releases unlicensed DVD players that can descramble CSS. (livid)
Movie Studio A claims the right to sue Software Company D, based on the fact that D's players can descramble A's discs without the authority of copyright owner A.
Why does My Company C not have the right to do the same thing? My Company C never gave Player Manufacturer B permission to manufacture DVD players that can decode my DVDs.
The MPAA is not claiming that DeCSS is a trade secret violation. They are only claiming that DeCSS is illegal because it is an "unlawful circumvention device" that provides access to movies without the MPAA's permission
An unlicensed encoder does not provide access to any copyrighted works, and is not a circumvention device under the DMCA.
As for the trade secret issue.
I agree with your comments about stealing trade secrets, but no one is claiming that DeCSS was derived from a stolen copy of DVD-CCA documents. In fact, all of the evidence so far indicates that DeCSS was derived legally -- by reverse engineering a legally purchased copy of the XING player in a country where such reverse engineering is fully legal.
This is the proper, legal way to expose trade secrets.
I'm strongly tempted to produce my own copyrighted work in DVD format and then sue the DVDCCA for circumventing my Technological Protection Measure.
This is an extremely interesting theoretical attack on the DMCA.
1) Create a CSS-encrypted DVD. Now that the algorithm is known, this should be trivial.
2) Get a lawyer and prepare to spend a lot of money.
3) Send cease and desist orders to one of the established player manufacturers, citing the DMCA. They are producing hardware that can remove the copy protection on your work, without your permission.
Now, the court can do one of three things:
1) Order the DVD player manufacturer to stop manufacturing DVD players (which would cause an industry stampede to Congress to get the DMCA modified or repealed)
2) Toss your claim, thus creating a precedent that the inventor of a TPM is entitled to a perpetual patent-like monopoly over the use of that TPM, and hopefully raising the eyebrows of the appeals courts and the Supreme Court.
3) Toss the DMCA as unconstitutional.
Anything I missed?
When the DMCA is first used successfully against a large publishing company, such as an RIAA or MPAA member, it will be found unconstitutional or suddenly repealed.
Right now it's being used to crush small, upcoming companies, but it's an incredibly powerful weapon, and if a small company can figure out a way to get their hands on it and successfully use it against a big company, they will be in just as powerful a position as the lawyers who just convinced a judge to allow lawsuits against the LAPD using the RICO statutes.
Problem is, John Q. Public doesn't care whether he's breaking the law or not in most cases like this.
John Q. Public's been copying videotapes, cassettes, CD's, and Software from his buddies for many, many years, generally completely aware that what he's doing is "technically illegal", but generally not enforced.
Problem is, John Q. Public's been operating this way for so long, he feels it doesn't matter if they crank down the laws beyond where they are now, such that they keep him from 'fair use' - he figures he'll just ignore the law then, too, so why expend any energy thinking about the problem (let alone DOING anything about it.)
At least, that seems to be the prevailing attitude in the US. I think the only thing that'll get an uproar is if the laws get ridiculously tight AND WIDELY ENFORCED all at once, such that John Q. Public gets spanked before he can get used to it. If, though, US Congress Inc continues repealing rights little by little, John Q. Public won't even notice until it's WAY too late to do anything about it.
So, in short, while I've not actually given up, I feel like I'm trying to run a "three-legged-race" while the guy I'm tied to is trying to take a nap.
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Yeah, but the DMCA was produced by US Congress, Inc. Don't tell me you think they know how to COUNT! :-)
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
It all neatly falls out from the algebra. Either the DMCA must be struck down on constitutional grounds, or we can expect every decision issued under it to look like these ones.
Someone HAS to have this stuff. WHO'S GOT IT?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Hmmm, both the MPAA and RIAA are made up of individual member companies. I really should go back and read the RICO statutes, again...
If you had access to the relevant specs, you could manufacture your own, at least in theory. Without mass production techniques, it would be much more expensive.
There's an interesting question in it's own right:
Are there any laws (of specific interest to me, in the USA) against maufacturing writable DVD's without the preburnt sector?
I am so glad that I will continue to be in the wonderfull position of having to re-download realmedia content everytime that I want to see/hear it. That makes much more sense then downloading once and archiving it!
Can anyone say "Streaming MP3?"
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
AFAIK, it's hard to get blank DVD disks that don't have the key sector preburned with zeros. This may make it difficult to create a CSS-protected disk.
Vectro, jms, anyone else who wants to try this: if you actually manage to create a CSS-protected work and get to step 2 (the one involving spending money on lawyers) let me know and I'll pitch in.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The best thing about hidden goatse.cx links is that you can click them in an open area and then explain to your coworkers that you were tricked.
Pity you can only do this once or twice before they start to wise up.
--Shoeboy
"We are pleased to be working with RealNetworks to put this behind us and to bring the creative energies of our software developers together with the leading company in digital media distribution," Bob Hildeman, CEO of Streambox, said in a statement.
Am I the only one reminded of middle school and how the bigger kids would put you in a headlock and not let you out until you said that your mom was a whore or something like that?
Man this brings back memories.
It's good to see that the tradition lives on in the grownup world.
--Shoeboy
This is bad in that it is almost an admission of guilt, giving up the fight.
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
To hell with congress, those fuckers only work for the highest bidder, which is not us. Get out your debuggers and packet sniffers, reverse engineer the Real protocols, and set it loose on the net à la DeCSS. Not even the government and its guns can stuff a genie back in its bottle.
Neither a freemail account nor a free web hosting account is truly anonymous. They do retain HTTP access logs, and your ISP will be required to turn over their dialup logs pointing the activity to you personally if they are subpoenaed to do so. Remember Yahoo being required to positively identify the poster of the Apple leaks?
If you want true privacy, sign up at Zero Knowledge Systems and/or use a Mixmaster remailer.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. See a competent attorney in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.
Why not make an open source media player that accepts a variety of input, decoder and output plugins? These plugins could connect in certain orders for different tasks. Say:
Disk (input) -> video decoder -> screen (output)
\-> audio decoder -> speakers (output)
Basically someone would have to write a realmedia decoder plugin and realmedia server input plugin. Then one could theoretically do the following.
Realserver (input) -> real decoder (outputs separate video/audio streams) ->
mpeg encoder (accepts separate audio and video streams) -> disk (output)
Of course the realmedia decoder would come separate from the disk writing plugin, which could be have thousands of uses. Ideally the disk writing plugin should come with the player and someone independently needs to write the realmedia plugins. Neither plugin would violate the DMCA on its own.
Streambox allowed access to work that was never purchased. This makes a big difference in the fair use analysis.
It simply time-shifts it, doesn't it?
I mean - I don't purchase public television but I'm still allowed to record a movie on my VCR.
To me, this seems like an over-ruling of the time-shifting fair use right upheld in the BetaMax case (which Congress specifically mentioned that DMCA _should not_ overrule when they hashed out the law).
Anyway, since this was settled out of court, it won't produce much legal precedent.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
the player manufacturers are not producing hardware "that can remove the copy protection on your work. "
Ah, but the DMCA says "circumvention". And circumvention is defined as gaining access without the authority of the copyright owner.
If I publish a DVD and say that any DVDCCA licensed player is not authorized to play it, then surely that nice Sony box is a circumvention device.
This idea has already been thrown around on the openlaw mailinglist and rejected. Basically, any sane judge would throw out a case like this because it is clearly constructed.
Furthermore, by producing a DVD you implicitly allow it to be viewed on a DVD player.
Ah, it gets better than that. The MPAA claims that they implicitly authorise the disc to be played on DVDCCA-licensed DVD-players only.
This is really about controlling the players through a licensing regime. The cool thing is that they can add a lot of player restrictions through that license - restrictions that don't allow us many of the fair use rights we used to have.
Btw, here's a nice quote from Kaplan's ruling:
"The fact that Congress elected to leave technologically unsophisticated persons who wish to make fair use of encrypted copyrighted works without the technical means of doing so is a matter for Congress"
So - we are allowed fair use, but we are not allowed to perform the act of fair use if it requires circumventing some access control.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
And you don't have to "agree" to Real's terms and conditions when you install the software?
/usr/lib/realplayer.
... does that mean DVD manufacturers are "modifying copyright" simply because you can't copy a DVD without special equipment that is on the fringe of legality?
.. they can determine exactly how it can be used, and you as an end user only have two options ... agree, or don't. You have no fair use rights in this case.
Sure I do. Actually, when i install RealPlayer 7 on a Linux box, it just drops a license file in
This is what that license file has to say about the content that i view through realplayer:
"2
b) You agree that you shall only use
the Software and Documentation in a
manner that complies with all
applicable laws in the jurisdictions in
which you use the Software and
Documentation, including, but not
limited to, applicable restrictions
concerning copyright and other
intellectual property rights.
c) You may only use the Software for
your private, non-commercial use. You
may not use the Software in any way to
provide, or as part of, any commercial
service or application. Copies of
content files, including, but not
limited to songs and other audio
recordings, which are downloaded or
copied using the Software, and which
are protected by the copyright laws or
related laws of any jurisdiction, are
for your own personal use only and may
not be distributed to third parties or
performed outside your normal circle of
family and social acquaintances.
d) You may not use the Software in an
attempt to, or in conjunction with, any
device, program or service designed to
circumvent technological measures
employed to control access to, or the
rights in, a content file or other work
protected by the copyright laws of any
jurisdiction."
From what I can see, it only says that I am required to follow copyright law on the content received through realplayer.
Also, what rights I have to a certain work distributed through a realvideo stream is granted by the copyright owner, and not by Real.
Last I hear, click-wrap agreements were not unconstitutional or even on shaky ground.
The clickwrap license itself is not, as far as I know. However, you can not add any term you like to a clickwrap license and believe that it is legally binding. For example, reverse engineering is explicitly allowed in many countries even if a term in the clickwrap should claim otherwise.Also, a clickwrap is basically a non-negotiable contract so that would possibly also limit what terms are legally binding in a clickwrap compared to standard contract law.
I don't have time to hunt for case law at the moment, but I'm pretty sure that I would be able to find court rulings where terms in a clickwrap have been overuled.
If clickwrap is already dried and cut, why did the content and software producers push the UCITA so hard?
No, Realmedia video is available to a select group of people. Those who a) have an internet connection, b) have agreed to Real's terms for using their RealVideo software, and c) that choose to login to a certain site and request the stream.
In my opinion, that would be like saying that a certain public broadcast is only available to the select few who have a) a TV, and b) choose to tune in to a praticular channel at a particular time.
Once the FCC regulates Real content, then I'll agree with fair use/time shifting arguments but until then, it is a proprietary data feed bound to Real's terms and conditions.
So you are only guaranteed fair use rights if the work is distributed over a distribution channel regulated by the FCC?
I find that strange, but I don't know enough about the FCC to provide counter arguments on that one.
Perhaps I should have used audio CDs as an example instead.
They are not modifying copyright laws at all, they are determining how they want THEIR proprietary data utilized.
The protection offered to IP by law is either governed by copyright or contract law. If I don't need to click through a license or sign a contract to watch a certain realmedia video stream, I would assume that it is covered by normal copyright law - including fair use.
I'm sure you have read Kaplan's ruling in MPAA vs 2600. If not, I'd advise you to.
Kaplan found that a customer is entitled to fair use of the work contained on a DVD. However, it is illegal to actually exercise this right, as it requires the circumvention of an access control.
You have the right to fair use, but performing the act of fair use is illegal. If that isn't modifying copyright law, I don't know what is.
Real's feeds are NOT like the government subsidized airwaves that have been deemed a minimal communication's mechanism that should be afforded to all Americans. It is a proprietary data feed, Real owns it
You are confusing distribution mechanism and content.
Real owns the format, i.e. the distribution mechanism. They do not, however, own most of the content distributed in realmedia format.
It is the copyright owner of the work, not Real, that determines the terms. The terms either has to be a contract, or plain copyright.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
That would just show utter disregard for the law, and would make us no friends in the legal departments.
Those who read Kaplan's ruling knows what his view of the Open Source community is. Acts like this will just solidify the perception that we disregard any law as long as we are able to circumvent it, and will make it a lot harder for our arguments to be taken seriously in a court of law.
The fight is not about "can we circumvent this?", it is about "how can we show that this law is bad, and get it removed".
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
While I certainly see broadcast and cable TV being considered in time shifting arguments, I can't see the same when it comes to streamed content via the Internet
I'm not a fan of "one time use" entertainment (i.e. Divx)
Ah, but with DivX you actually sign a _contract_ saying that you enter into a PayPerView arrangement. Thus, the sale/rental is covered by contract law, not copyright law.
A Realmedia video available to anyone is for all practical purposes equal to a TV broadcast. Why shouldn't the content be covered by normal copyright law?
I can't see the same when it comes to streamed content via the Internet, especially when that streaming is via proprietary format at the originating company's expense.
What has the expense got to do with it? TV broadcasts also cost. Publishing a webzine costs.
They publish it. Ergo, the content should be covered by copyright law.
The way I see it, you play by Real's rules (watch it when it's streamed real-time) or don't watch it at all. No one is forcing you to use the technology, God knows Real has huge competition in this area anyway and if their business model is so evil, you can rest assured it will fail due to consumer backlash in the end.
Sorry, but I find that bullshit.
Why should companies be allowed to modify copyright law to suit their business model?
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Technological Protection Measure
Ah, but with DivX you actually sign a _contract_ saying that you enter into a PayPerView arrangement. Thus, the sale/rental is covered by contract law, not copyright law.
... does that mean DVD manufacturers are "modifying copyright" simply because you can't copy a DVD without special equipment that is on the fringe of legality? Hell no. If this whole DeCSS thing works out for the "people" (it won't, don't get your hopes up) then this may change, but until then ... it's a fact of life.
... if the data owner decides to add even more conditions, it's their right .. just as it's your right to decline to accept those terms and not utilize the data.
.. they can determine exactly how it can be used, and you as an end user only have two options ... agree, or don't. You have no fair use rights in this case.
And you don't have to "agree" to Real's terms and conditions when you install the software? I'm certain you do, just as you must agree to almost any software vendor's terms for using their product. Last I hear, click-wrap agreements were not unconstitutional or even on shaky ground.
A Realmedia video available to anyone is for all practical purposes equal to a TV broadcast. Why shouldn't the content be covered by normal copyright law?
No, Realmedia video is available to a select group of people. Those who a) have an internet connection, b) have agreed to Real's terms for using their RealVideo software, and c) that choose to login to a certain site and request the stream.
Real's content is not floating around in the air like network TV. Once the FCC regulates Real content, then I'll agree with fair use/time shifting arguments but until then, it is a proprietary data feed bound to Real's terms and conditions.
Why should companies be allowed to modify copyright law to suit their business model?,
They are not modifying copyright laws at all, they are determining how they want THEIR proprietary data utilized.
If Braveheart comes on TNT, you can tape it
What most people don't seem to understand is that copyright is a bare minimum
Real's feeds are NOT like the government subsidized airwaves that have been deemed a minimal communication's mechanism that should be afforded to all Americans. It is a proprietary data feed, Real owns it
and Streambox can't distribute tools that decode the stream for such fair use puposes as time shifting and personal archiving. This is not good news for anyone hoping for commonsense wisdom from the bench when it comes to the provisions of the DMCA.
While I certainly see broadcast and cable TV being considered in time shifting arguments, I can't see the same when it comes to streamed content via the Internet, especially when that streaming is via proprietary format at the originating company's expense.
I'm not a fan of "one time use" entertainment (i.e. Divx) but I'm not about to support a company that circumvents the safeguards put in place by the company selling the product either. I'll simply not use their product, in this case, RealPlayer. Their business model may not be right for you, that doesn't mean someone circumventing their protections is justified nor does it mean YOU have any rights to time shift the content just because you can under other fair use situations like broadcast TV.
The way I see it, you play by Real's rules (watch it when it's streamed real-time) or don't watch it at all. No one is forcing you to use the technology, God knows Real has huge competition in this area anyway and if their business model is so evil, you can rest assured it will fail due to consumer backlash in the end.
AFAIK, it specifically outlaws any device that circumvents anti-piracy protections. DVD players do so, but have copyright protections of their own.
Does the latter matter, after all the deCSS software also has copyright protection.
Rader
>Everyone here is ranting and raving about the system and then everyone rants and raves about no one doing anything about it. I'm pretty ticked off about the whole thing too so I need to know how many of you would back me for a political stand.
Sign me up! Can I be Minister of Internal Security?
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Oops, the first sentance should be "DMCA is anti open-source"
--
If someone wrote realplayer in opensource that didn't save anything to disk, that might seem okay at first (it doesn't allow copyright infringement). But since it's open source, it might be next to trivial for someone else to modify the program to save to disk rather than display to screen.
So, at the very least, when dealing with programs that allow viewing of copyrighted material that would otherwise be locked, it seems like DMCA would require opensource programs to obfuscate the interface between the decoder and the displayer/player.
But then their copy protection mechanism would be downgraded to how well the OSS coder obfuscated the interface, and might make it illegal to untangle the interface.
But in the end, it doesn't seem like DMCA is very compatible with OSS.
--
Older versions of Windows Media Player used to play contemporary versions of the RealMedia format. Quicktime, too.
The government fixed that.
MSK
Any idea if it would be possible to get one custom-manufactured?
Even on that front, of course, the theorey fails. Streambox didn't violate anyone's copyright. They did, however violate the DMCA. But as we all know, the DMCA takes away fair use.
I'm strongly tempted to produce my own copyrighted work in DVD format and then sue the DVDCCA for circumventing my Technological Protection Measure.
I have a copy of Streambox VCR 1.0 at home. It's a Beta version, and it's been cracked, so that should tell you something about it's stablity. The reason for using this instead of just recording from the audio output is the way the data is delivered to my system. All it takes is a little line noise or server snafu and you will wind up with a recording that has a bunch of blank spaces. Not very fun. Streambox VCR saves the stream to a file, and can also resume it if their is a connection problem. Not very useful for live stuff, but nice for other things like radio show arcives that are deleted every few months. It also tells you some stats and info, etc. It's a really usefull tool for people who have flaky connections. Works with audio and video, but you sometimes have to muck around to find exactly where the audio/video stream is coming from, as it is sometimes bundled up in some java filler.
You can still get it from some warez sites, if you are into that kinda thing.
This case didn't really mean a whole lot. Many of the issues that make the DMCA a bad law either weren't present or weren't raised.
Streambox allowed access to work that was never purchased. This makes a big difference in the fair use analysis.
Streambox lost under 1201(b)(1) which concerns circumvention for copyright infringement purposes. They did also lose an (a)(2) claim, but they have no way to claim their access is authorized by first sale, since there was no first sale.
They didn't press any of the Constitutional claims that were raised to Kaplan. They keep their source code proprietary which indicates that they are not trying to communicate coding ideas.
They can't qualify for the reverse engineering exception because it requires the interoperability not result in copyright infringement.
Shoutcast makes a streaming audio server in some ways similar to what real is doing. Is this something they could bitchslap me for if they had the desire?
I have no idea how shoutcast feels about my program and I doubt anybody there even knows about it. Makes you nervous to develop software these days.
The inevitable consequence of the DMCA restrictions on fair use will be to drive media services like Napster and MP3.com offshore, like many of the gambling sites, beyond the effective reach of the DMCA. This will be good for globalization and drive the tendency of the Internet to obsolete national governments. The market always finds a way.
This was not a legal ruling by the judge and sets no legal precedent whatsoever. Since Streambox agreed to an OUT-OF-COURT settlement. Think for a second about what that means. Obviously Streambox realized they didn't have a leg to stand on and decided to settle rather than fight. This gives no weight to anything since the decision will never be on the books for precedent.
--------- Beware the dragon, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
The hell with petitions. Write your congresscritter, and send money to any lobbying organization trying to do something about the probem. Remember the article about geeks being unsophisticated about how the world works? Look in the mirror.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Bingo. With the DMCA, the fair-use rights to space-shift, time-shift and archive have apparently been tossed out the window by the trial courts )in the first round). No telling if it will be reversed on appeal, but we can hope.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Better be sure to cover your tracks, then. Remember Jon Johansen!
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
There are perfetly good IETF standards fro streaming media -RTP & RTSP. RealServer8 wil use them; QuickTime uses them. As these are open protocols they should be as DMCA-proof as HTML.
In brief thats right. Many countires that are WIPO members are suposed to bring in laws to protect digital content. That includes stuff thats been encrypted. The DMCA however has used this a a trojan horse to introduce legislation that exceeds even that agreed by WIPO. /. moderation sucks)
And WIO is an organisation with zero consumer input input, and is essentially a Worldwide club of megacorp content providers, like the MPAA/RIAA except not as easygoing. The resolutions passed therefore refelct the will of those people paying the bills and the expenses of the UN members involved.
(IAAL and i would give a fuller answer this but since I always get low karma points for slashdot replies i can be bothered to write long answers anymore -
-he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
journal
Does someone know any more on this subject? If this is correct, you're pretty much screwed if you're in any UN country.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This will have the extremely convienent (From the MPAA and RIAA's point of view) side effect of preventing anyone from creating any content without their permission and sanction, allowing them to lock the market up even more than they already have.
Guys over at Suck and Petreley may smirk now and call us idealistic and greedy. They'll be singing another tune altogether when they have to ask Time Warner for permission to publish their articles in SecureXML(tm) which is the only thing anyone has a browser to anymore.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I have always wanted a solution to the RealMedia crisis. I hate the player, but some clips that get sent around are only in RM formats. On a rare occasion, I'll want to watch a RM stream, but if I do I want it to be the highest-quality stream. That wouldn't be a problem if the player would just buffer the entire clip (even in an encrypted form) somewhere before they play it.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-
No...they have to try to play it live, and so it ends up skipping and looking awful.
Well, what about this solution:
I saw a driver a long time ago that emulated a sound card, but really just dumped the content to the hard drive. Can't the same approach be applied to video?
Imagine a Windows 98 driver that emulates a standard VGA screen (640x480x8bit). All this driver does it take in the information from the OS, compose it into a bitmap of the screen and then save it to disk. Maybe throw in MPEG compression and output a stream.
The real trick is how to work this since it wouldn't be viewable. That's where 98 comes in, with it's multiple monitor support. You add this driver as a second monitor and put it to the right of your current workspace. On your primary (actual) monitor, load up the RM content. Then drag the window off the screen to the right onto the "virtual" monitor. Then hit the hotkey that plays the content and let it all be captured to disk. From there, just use a video editor to crop every frame to remove the desktop and Real player window.
What about it? Could this be done? It doesn't have to be a Windows solution, but that's all I know so I'm sure someone else could figure out a *nix solution.
This solution would also work for Windows Media and QuickTime...it would get them all in one fell swoop! "If I can view it, I can record it..."
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Man, I was taking a nap...
.sig and look in the appropriate directory.... NOTE THAT I HAVE NOT TESTED THE FILES YET FOR WORKING STATUS/VIRUSES/WHATEVER. I got them from some FTP site in .ru....
I wake up (or did I?), head over to slashdot, and see THIS, and I think.... damn this is a bad dream! But then I realize that I actually AM awake. Well folks, this is REALLY ****** ironic because (within past 2 days) I _JUST_ finished finding a copy of Streambox VCR.... glad I did it now! And just so all of you can have it, click the link in my
Anyways, download and mirror, y'all know the drill.
-----
Or, even better. Since pretty much everyone on Slashdot (aside from maybe those ugly things under the bridge and the guys over there with flamethrowers) dislikes the DMCA for one reason or another, create a new Slashdot section dedicated to co-ordinating opposition to it. Make a petition part of it, but do other stuff too. Heck, when K5 gets back up, get together with Rusty (he's the guy in charge of K5, right?) and make it a joint effort!
-RickHunter
I was thinking more along the lines of adding a section to the site dedicated to providing orginization and information. I suppose a Slashbox would work too... Perhaps it would be good if there was a Slashbox linking to multiple sections, each one involving a particular shitty law?
Unfortunately, I'm drawing a blank on more detailed ideas for the content of these sections... Guess my lunchtime coffee's effects are finally wearing off...
-RickHunter
Isn't a free press wonderful?
But don't worry, Real has nothing that I want.
Write a "liscence" that says your DVD may only be viewed in Eastern Europe on a full moon. The commercial DVD player is obviously violating your idea of regional viewing and the manner in which you have given permision for your work to be used. What worse form of circumvision can those clever bastards think of, except to pirate it outright and sell it everywhere with glaring adverts pushing it?
You know, I'm really starting to feel like the man is holding me down...
...it may be the straight-jacket and leg shackles, though.
How you see the world is how the world sees you.
I see from the streambox website that the VCR is not yet available. Is there another application out there that can save a RealAudio stream for later playback?
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
"Women! Can't live with them, Pass the beer nuts."
Norm - Cheers sitcom
What's even more fun is a tv-in card and a program to record the input
-- Dr. Eldarion --
And I had them both before all this DMCA business.
http://crummysocks.com
the world sux when you cant even have a digital vcr.
It dont look good for vcrs being around for long after digital tv comes out
- that the supplied Windows 2000 driver works with Windows 2000,
- that the supplied Windows 9x driver works with both Windows 98 and Windows Me and is 32-bit (not a VxD), and
- that whenever Digital Rights Management is turned on, the sound card driver disables all digital output (either from a connector on the card or to a disk file).
Then Microsoft signs the driver digitally, asserting that "if your box crashes, it's not this driver's fault, and this driver is allowed to play copyrighted streams."<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Windows Millennium Edition supports driver signing: companies submit their drivers to M$ and they get a logo license and a digital signature. Its audio pipeline will not play copyrighted data over an unsigned (i.e. untrusted) driver.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Have a look at ASFRecorder, it allows you to save streaming ASF files and its written by some anonymous group.
l ight=asfrecorder
http://freshmeat.net/projects/asfrecorder/?high
Full source and win32 gui included.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
So the "For crist's sake its just a video recorder" argument didn't work then.
Streambox should release their recorder as open-source, as a big "fuck you" to the DMCA. Let it join the ranks of deCSS and Gnutella - another cat that is out of the bag and won't be going back in, EVER.
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
ASFRecorder is similar to Streambox VCR, except it works with Windows Media. I wonder when MS will try to get all those mirrors taken down...
Could it be a result of 2600, et all losing the MPAA DeCSS case and being required to pay the costs of the kangeroo court case against them?
People, we need to fight the DMCA. Write your Congressman, etc. It appears nowadays, when you lose, they aren't satisfied with getting you to stop, they want to steal your assets too.
It used to be the costs of hiring a lawyer were the reason to be scared, fighting it required being able to pay that. Some people could do that. If you could afford to fight them, you'd win. THat has changed. 2600, et all lost, even with good legal representation. With all these losses and settlements that demand financial pay offs, even if you can afford the lawyer you can go broke. They want more than just your profits but anything they can claim as damages and failing that, statuatory damages. I.E. even if you prove you didn't profit and did no harm they can still take your money. So much for legal principles of equity.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
But laws aren't permanent. They can be overturned on costitutional grounds, although I don't see an obvious way to apply that attack in this case. Better yet, laws like this can be undone by Congress.
The Geek Vote doesn't hold much sway in Congress, so we need to get John Q. Public interested in this. If enough people complain (and threaten to vote according to their complaints), then politicians will do the right thing.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
----
Instead of continuing to post various accounts of where the DMCA was used to prevent a company from reverse engineering a protocol to foster interoperability, host a petition on the /. site and allow visitors to sign it. There is nothing that anybody can post to this story that has not already been said about DeCSS, CueCat, etc.
/.ers would be willing to help as well. Slashdot's YRO section needs to evolve beyond simply news to include an ACLU-like action center.
Not only would you finally be able to produce something tangible that represents the opinions of the community, you would get TONS of page-views as people include a link to the petition on their sites. I would be willing to work with you to draft the petition and I'm sure other
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Yeah, I know that reasoning didn't help Jon Johanssen much, but I'd like to believe all the world is NOT territory of the USA. BTW, what is Jon's current status? Is he clear regarding Norwegian law or what?
The critical thing about online activism is to make it simple to participate. IW goes part of the way but doesn't itself mobilize opponents... maybe a "Fight DMCA" slashbox would be a good way to start.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
Technichally-speaking (well what else is /. for) a Digital Millennium Copyright Act wouldn't come into force for another 115 days...
said treaties were engineered by the US President (thanks, Bill) and foisted on the world without mandate by other world leaders. It seems internet law is being made in the United States and exported through gullible stooges like the UKs Tony Blair. Only off-shore piracy will save us.
--
Under the DMCA, would it be legal to, say, reverse engineer the PCAnywhere network protocol to create a 3rd party software program that works just like pcAnywhere?
Would it be legal under the DMCA to reverse engineer the java applet that Symantec has created in order to do the same?
What exactly are we allowed to reverse engineer, and when?
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
I think that in the present litigious environment the only way we're going to get some of these handy items (like a 'VCR' for realaudio and windows streaming media. I tried out a cracked version of Streambox VCR and it's really great) is to quietly develop them out of public view and then release them into the world. Sort of the way Gnutella happened, except that the source would be released as well. Anyone know of an effort to develop a Streambox VCR-like tool?
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
Your rights are for sale to the highest bidder. You'd better be the highest bidder, fix the process, or get used to doing what the highest bidder permits.
I'm only halfway kidding here. There really should be a coalition of those of us who oppose this kind of thing and are willing to actively (and financially) back it.
Everyone here is ranting and raving about the system and then everyone rants and raves about no one doing anything about it. I'm pretty ticked off about the whole thing too so I need to know how many of you would back me for a political stand. I need to know before I quit my job and go on this quest to save the technological world. Why would I quit my job. I don't do anything anyway aside from posting to slashdot so I've got the free time.
I think that it's time to start hacking all the formats out there and do the same thing that has been done with DeCSS. Let's start a media revolution and slay this licensing beast! Personally, I think that if you own a DVD disk, you should be free to play it however the hell you can (or want).
I've heard rumors of a new compression format that will house 5-minute CD quality songs in less than 500K, and full movies in 100 MB. Let's hope that it's free.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I wish this had turned out otherwise...it would be nice if someone else could use Real's format. I don't know about anyone else, but RealPlayer bogs my computer down like I'm running moslow at like 2% or something. I'm also pretty sick of streaming media that's in a 1.5" square section of my screen at about 8 fps...I mean, I have a cable modem, not two tin cans and a string here.
OK, ranting complete now. I would DEFINITELY like to see either someone else be licensed to use the format, or see another streaming format take over the market. I can't take RealPlayer any more.
BEGIN_RANT
MPAA has a monolopy on DVD licensing, RIAA has a monolopy on music radio play (try to get a radio station to play music from a label that isn't part of the RIAA, ever hear Fugazi on the radio? I didn't think so. They regularly presell 300-400 Thousand records) and yet they can hide behind the DMCA to protect their monolopies.
With Realplayer, it's even more absurd. What exactly is copyrighted? The files? What if I created a RealPlayer based video, can I play it on anything I wanted or do they have the copyright on it? Do they have a copyright on the format? How can you copyright a format? Did they do this because they can't patent it? Isn't this all just abuse?
We have morons running the country who get paid by these fools during reelection who think that somehow having the ability to play DVD's or Realplayer files on the our choice of player is a bad idea, and having a monolopy having near 100% control over the music on the radio is a good idea.
Vote the bastards out
Burn Hollywood Burn
I wonder what the reaction would be if instead of actually writing a player/decoder/device to bypass an encryption scheme (which is what this streambox player thing sounds like*) someone released a complete description of the the reaplayer protocol. By that I mean something that could not by itself be compiled, ran or used by a non technical person in any way.
I imagine RealShmucks would be completely pissed off but unable to do anything due to that pesky first amendment (at least in the US), and it would serve as a roadmap to any developer who wanted to take the next logical step. Not only that, but if done correctly and written up nice the author could still take credit and not have to worry about helmeted thugs breaking down his door.
(*hey anyone got a working link to a working copy of this S/W?)
Cleara
DeCSS must live! Mirror a copy today!
For people who haven't had enough of the DMCA, here is an ISP info sheet put out by the University of Texas (UT)....
I wonder if these types of notices will eventually be federally mandated to post somewhere (think: company lunchroom).
Once the DMCA is turned against a large entity instead of "cannon fodder", I think the public will mysteriously begin to dislike it. Who knew?
;-)
--
Spindletop Blackbird, the GNU/Linux Cube.