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."
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...
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to stop manufacturing DVD players (which would cause an industry stampede to Congress to get the DMCA modified or repealed)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.
"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
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.
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.
[...] 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.
[...] Anything I missed?
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. If you would try to copy it the Macrovision would kick in and scramble the signal.
Furthermore, by producing a DVD you implicitly allow it to be viewed on a DVD player. Duh. How else could you possibly view any type of media except on a player that was designed to view that type of media!
--
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
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.