Slashdot Mirror
Corporate Behemoth Keeps Ripping "Real"
First, the reasons I don't think that RealPlayer has much effect on actual piracy. Yes, if a pirate has uploaded your favorite song to YouTube, you can save a copy of the video file to hear the song over and over, but you can do the same thing on YouTube itself as long as you're connected to the Internet. The anonymous network exec in the Variety article points out that RealPlayer "allows you to own [content] forever on your hard drive, even if the Web site that distributed that content illegally has taken it down in because we've complained." But regardless of what complaints they've been sending, almost all popular songs are currently available for listening on YouTube so that anyone with a Net connection can get them on demand, and that's a separate issue, with or without RealPlayer.
So then it becomes a question of whether RealPlayer enables the user to do more interesting things with the song or video, like take it with them on an iPod. RealPlayer only lets you save YouTube videos as an FLV file. But as long as doing things like playing an FLV file on an iPod requires an outside hack, that option is only available to people who are resourceful enough to go out and find tools like that (admittedly not a very high bar, but too hard for many people). So, suppose you define a "resourceful" person as someone smart enough to figure out how to convert an FLV file into an iPod-viewable format. Then there are two possibilities: (a) either a person is not that "resourceful", in which case if they want content to take with them, they'll still have to get it through legitimate channels like the iTunes store, or (b) if the person is "resourceful", they would have known about tools for ripping YouTube videos to MP3, long before RealPlayer 11 came out (in fact, most sites that come up in a search for "flv to mp3 converter" are just rippers specifically for YouTube). In either case, RealPlayer's ability to save FLV files has no impact on the market for the song.
I haven't talked about some outlier cases where RealPlayer could perhaps help a novice user avoid paying for content (if a novice pirate didn't know enough to download a movie from a BitTorrent network, they could perhaps save up enough interesting videos from YouTube for a long plane ride where they won't have Internet access). But there's an easy way to get a verdict on RealPlayer's impact on piracy: How much have you heard teenagers talking about it? You heard teens through the years buzzing about Napster, KaZaA, and BitTorrent, but... RealPlayer? The cliche among teenagers today is to go "find something on YouTube", but "and then grab it with RealPlayer" has yet to prove useful enough to enter the vernacular.
Similarly, RealPlayer can be used to rip streams from Pandora, but it's just hard enough to do it that most people are likely to give up. Before going into details, I should say that I'm against anyone trying to circumvent paying for music. Most of the time when you read that on the Web, it carries this nudge-wink subtext right before the author launches into a detailed description about how, exactly, to circumvent paying for music. But I really do believe that there is a vast untapped potential of unwritten good music out there, and that it could be tapped if there were only lower barriers of entry for musicians, better channels to distribute music to users, and a guarantee that users would pay instead of stealing it -- all of which is helped by services like Pandora. On the other hand, I also believe that if a copying scheme can be circumvented, and especially if it can be circumvented in a way that's fairly easy to discover, there's no point in keeping it secret: We might as well push things forward by acknowledging that the scheme is beatable, and deciding what to do about it.
The outing commences: if you save a stream from Pandora, RealPlayer will give you an error if you try to play the stream back from your RealPlayer library. But if you find the "mp4" file in your RealPlayer downloads, you can play it in WinAmp. However, the file as saved will not play in Windows Media Player, iTunes, or RealPlayer itself. Plus, since Pandora does not let you pick which song you want to listen to on demand, your stream might contain all the songs that you had to skip past to get the one you wanted, and you'd have to find a utility to edit the mp4 file to get rid of that cruft at the beginnig. At some point, the effort probably exceeds the dollar you'd have to pay to get the song on iTunes (or, if you're a pirate, the effort to find it on a p2p network).
Again, the "teenager buzz test" is instructive. You do hear kids these days talking about listening to songs on Pandora, but not about ripping them with RealPlayer.
Where I think RealPlayer will make the most difference in the long run is in its political and legal impact, by legitimizing stream-ripping as something that "real" companies, so to speak, are allowed to do. In 2006, Google sent a cease-and-desist letter to TechCrunch for hosting a tool that lets users save YouTube videos to their hard drives. Michael Arrington of TechCrunch blogged at the time, "I am likely to remove the tool to preserve my relationship with the company [Google/YouTube]", but the tool is still up, and I don't know whether it was ever taken down at all (TechCrunch did not respond to an inquiry). Today, there are more YouTube rippers than ever, several of them even running AdSense ads. (I'm not sure if that's within Google's rules, but I mentioned those sites while e-mailing back and forth with Google for this article, and they're all still running AdSense ads a week later.) Certainly Google would look pretty silly trying to force TechCrunch to take their ripper down today, now that Google itself is distributing RealPlayer as part of the Google Pack.
RealNetworks could argue that the main difference between RealPlayer 11, and the Streambox Ripper that they sued to have outlawed in 2001, was that the Streambox Ripper ignored the "do not copy" flag present in some RealAudio and RealVideo streams, and thus violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. RealNetworks says the do-not-copy flag is no longer used, having been supplanted by more sophisticated Digital Rights Management, and RealPlayer 11 will honor any DRM-protected streams and refuse to save them. But how much difference is there between "ignoring" the do-not-copy flag and "ignoring" the Terms of Service for sites like YouTube (which the program may not be aware of, but which its makers certainly are)?
We've all heard about the First Amendment implications of DeCSS code, the code for decrypting the copy-protection scheme on DVDs, being outlawed in the U.S. But the Streambox case set the bar for "violating the DMCA" considerably lower -- the Streambox Ripper didn't actively decrypt anything, it just ignored a flag set in the streaming media. What are the implications if "ignoring" a flag counts as "breaking" copy protection? Suppose Behemoth Corp releases Version 1 of some media format, and I release a third-party player that plays Version 1. Then Behemoth Corp releases the specs for Version 2 of the format, which is similar enough that it works in Version 1 players, except Version 2 now contains a "do-not-copy" flag, which my player doesn't know about. Is my player now illegal? (Well, in this case Behemoth Corp would just make sure that Version 2 doesn't play in Version 1 players. But what about general-purpose programs like Total Recorder that can record any sound playing through your computer to an MP3 file? Does that program become illegal if a company releases a new sound file format that they don't want to be copyable?) So I think the acceptance of RealPlayer has nudged us closer to legal acceptance of software that can interact with third-party sites and programs in a way that their makers don't like. That's good. It should not be against the law to make a program that interacts with third-party web sites in a way that they haven't given permission for, something I literally grew up saying.
It's brave of Google especially to be distributing RealPlayer along with the Google Pack, at the same time that YouTube is constantly attacked for enabling copyright violations. A content owner mounting a lawsuit against Google, would be foolish not to say something like, "Your Honor, not only does YouTube host thousands of videos violating the intellectual property rights of my clients, they even distribute a tool called RealPlayer that lets people violate YouTube's own Terms of Service by saving the videos to their hard drive!" Logically, of course, it's a weak argument -- RealPlayer is universally available whether Google distributes it or not -- but rhetorically the argument is golden.
On the other hand, since that hasn't happened, and RealPlayer 11 is pretty well entrenched after being out for a year, the result has probably been an expansion of our rights. Anyone else who got sued or threatened for releasing a ripping program would be able to point to RealNetworks. "Look at them, Your Honor, their Web site even tells people, 'Grab videos from thousands of Web sites with just one click', something that those 'thousands of Web sites' would probably not be thrilled with. If it's legal for RealNetworks to tell people that, how can it be illegal for me just to have a ripping program on my site?"
If a small-time programmer had made themselves a legal test case before RealPlayer 11 came out, things might have gone differently; it is an unfortunate truth that courts are probably more likely to consider something legal when it is done by a large and legitimate-looking company like RealNetworks. Big companies do well in court partly because their lawyers are paid to make good arguments, but they almost certainly also get more benefit of the doubt just by virtue of being big companies. I think the time is long overdue for using controlled experiments to measure the bias and objectivity of judges -- for example, having different actors, one white and one black, go into different courtrooms for "mock trials" (which the judges think are real), where both actors are standing trial for exactly identical crimes and their lawyers say exactly identical things, and repeat this experiment enough times to see how differently black and white defendants are treated. (We already see this, for example, in the disparity of sentences for powder cocaine vs. crack, but skeptics may have a point when they say that's not a controlled experiment, because the effects of crack and cocaine are different.) Similarly, have mock trials where a small-time "activist" and a large company are sued for doing exactly the same thing. I would bet that the disparity in the outcomes of those cases would far exceed any bias due to race or gender.
But since it was RealNetworks, with their lawyers and their NASDAQ listing and their former exec in the U.S. Senate, that brought ripping to the masses, that probably makes it OK for you and me. It's not fair, but in this case, it's a good thing.
People still use RealPlayer?
Just copy from the cache...
Real still exists? I have not seen a file in that format for years. Who in the Slashdot community actually uses any Real product, and not just for Pr0n.
Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
Google can make millions of dollars over Youtube by putting Text Ads to ripped content but when time comes that people actually saves the FLV file they already downloaded, it is a problem. Do you know the solution to prevent regular end user from ripping your (read, YOURS) content? DRM it. It will at least create some hassle and legal responsibility. Not like DRM ever actually worked.
Also targeting Real Networks will really work on Slashdot considering there are thousands of people who types almost memorised things like "Spyware!" when they hear Real Networks, a company who offers entire source in GPL on https://www.helixcommunity.org/
Nice, targeted article which you can only expect from a media professional having a pinpoint target. It wouldn't be wise to target Apple Inc. who offers "Save as source" in their Quicktime Plugin for ages when user pays $30 to their software making it "Pro".
Between Firefox extensions such as DownloadHelper (and half a dozen others with similar functionality), and the handy "dumpstream" option to MPlayer, does anyone really care that Real has decided to support what we've had the ability to do all along?
The only effect this might have (and the reason it scares companies)? It might reduce ad revenue from page views because Joe Sixpack can now store the "funny" clip of some guy getting his 'nads crushed by a 2x4, rather than needing to reload it live every time he wants to make his friends squirm. But even that depends on Joe Sixpack remembering where he saved the file, no small feat for Joe (in my experience).
And it took me to a list of stories tagged with "media." Slashdot has turned into a joke of an info site.
Realplayer has not had any effect on piracy because nobody in the right mind uses it. VLC plays pretty much anything you throw at it and for something stubborn theres "Real Alternative"
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
...back in the day when RealAudio kicked ass. AM-quality stereo(I think) audio over a 28.8 modem through a tiny unobtrusive program. What happened?
Their hypocrisy allowed my wife and I to download a lot of TV shows from Youtube that we couldn't get elsewhere. Can't say that I have too much to complain about there.
and I try and update various streaming rippers only to have it save an htm instead, tell me it cannot handle the page, or find the cache file locked to another application. Now I do cache raid IE sessions but would love to find a nearly fool proof way to get them through firefox.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Someone should write a alsadump program that saves everything that should go through the sound card to a .wav file. And the same for video.
That should bring discussions like this to an earlier end. (and maybe lead them directly to "trusted computing"/DRMed hardware)
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Real is considered a corporate behemoth?
This is a Real thread. Where's the expected onslaught of "buffering..." jokes?
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
Audacity. Just set the inputs correctly, and it will save the input.
So is Streambox preparing a lawsuit against Real Networks for what is now clearly a case of "restraint of trade" against a competitor? RN's motive was clearly not to stop "ripping", but to kill a competitor to their own ripping tool that wasn't yet ready for the market.
I wonder how Streambox could do with a claim that RN has ripped off their product design? Perhaps they could apply for a patent on their software, then charge RN with patent violation.
All sorts of possibilities come to mind. Of course, the "system" does have a way of siding with the biggest corporation. But it would be fun to see a bit of turnaround here, if there's any way it could be done.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Google owns Youtube.
And Quicktime doesn't let you rip movies from Youtube, etc.
while I don't hew to the subscription model for most of my media, as a musician and erstwhile student of music history, I've found Rhapsody to be an excellent tool. I can't afford to purchase (and don't have the time to steal) everything in Big Media's back catalog. Rhapsody enables that search/ listen/think cycle that makes me feel like I'm effectively schooling myself in musical history.
tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
I spent the majority of this weekend helping my 60 year old father in law find out of print records on Youtube. Eg, Brenda Holloway "Every Little Bit Hurts" I captured the sound via Audacity, and exported to mp3. He burned himself a CD of out of print 50's songs that he would have no other way of getting, and he was happier than a clam. I explained to him that this was only quasi-legal, and we searched for every song he wanted to aquire on Itunes before taking this route. Surprisingly, on a CD he burned with 24 tracks, only 2 were available for purchase, the rest were only available on the internet, or via a CD he already had.
Whether RealPlayer 11 can capture youtube audio is rather besides the point, as the "analog hole" will always be available.
--why?
I have a program that loads a video page from YouTube or any site that hosts such video, rips it to an FLV file, and converts it to iPod-compatible MP4. It's very good and the video comes out crisp (the audio is unchanged so always identical).
But Apple even helps out.
You can import the video as a "movie" or their new category, "music video". The music video choice means the song will play normally in a playlist in iTunes or on the iPod, but it will also play the video while playing the song. The nice feature is that on the iPod, it doesn't keep the backlight on unless you ask it to, so you don't waste your battery if you just want the music.
It's very easy to see why the iPod has been the leader in MP3 players. It does everything but [phrase omitted].
Real has been on the decline for a decade. They are not making any money, their media player is a living joke and I can't remember the last time I went to a site that actually required RealPlayer, or even offered it as the default/first choice.
Adding stream ripping is nothing but a desperate attempt to promote their software. They haven't the slightest desire to make people's lives easier, they are just desperately trying to regain market share.
step 1) tivo/vcr
step 2) pc video recorder
step 3) youtube upload
step 4) real ripper
step 5) I get a copy!
In the end, tivo will get blocked by networks, pc software will just stop working as they are now with DVDs, youtube and real will get sued by the studios, and I will get arrested.
Worse, if your entire work is based on Quicktime, you put Quicktime/H264 embedded to page and know that people paid $30 to Apple can easily save it as source, transcode it horribly (in general) and put to Youtube. You hate that junk presented by irrelevant text ads, contact them and they put a convenient "don't blame us, evil copyright owner forced us" toned thing to that page making your potential customers hate you.
Some spends time to "Do Not Allow Save" flag of Quicktime file but never seen that "Save As Source" grayed out so I don't bother anymore.
You're new around here, aren't you?
UTF-8: There and Back Again
any day. First it doesn't bring 20Meg of crap along with it thats takes you an hour to turn off, and Winamp will play Windows Media and the format for streaming video that Firefox Download Helper saves.
I thought google hasn't been able to monetize youtube?
People still read Bennett Haselton.
to REALly impress Jack the Ripper by going a "Rack the Jipper" campaign..
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Yeah, if you use their software. They are still against any competitors doing it.
has started to record Pandora.com now (www.recordpandora.com) - makes it VERY EASY (just click and go), and it's somehow naming the songs and getting album art.
Maybe you just missed the news that Microsoft bought Yahoo, and that Yahoo! search is now "MSN Livesearch"...
Not quite yet, Bill, keep your pants on.
Does he want the phone number/email address of someone who gives a shit about his opinion?
Youtube uses Flash, not Quicktime.
Anyone who knows a bit of HTML will find it trivial to rip most anything from web pages. The hardest to rip are movies/audio delivered using SWFs, however you can usually decompile them to get the resources or references to external resources you need.
Some sites think they can be tricky by checking referers on these externally obtained resources or other safeguards, but with even the toughest safeguards I've seen one thing has remained true... the data always has to be sent to your computer SOMEHOW so you can view it. Thus, network sniffers win every time. Just need to identify the HTTP stream with the resource, then dump the file from the sniffer's log to disk.
In theory this file could be encrypted or the transfer could use HTTPS or something, but I haven't come across this yet. Even if I did, the file could be lying around unencrypted in memory just waiting to be dumped to disk from there, so even that isn't a dead end. And I'm assuming I already checked the cache and couldn't find it there.
Dumping audio from a audio/video FLV (the "Happy " thing Valve did for Portal in December '07) was a bit annoying for me to crack, but eventually I figured out how to use mplayer to dump the audio portion of a FLV to disk... and it was in MP3 format already for me. How nice.
I don't consider this unethical since it's content they're giving to me freely*. They post it on a public website, invite people to download it to their computers (that's how web browsers work, insert eng101 smiley here). They've given me that content, plain and simple. I'm just moving it to a permanent place on my disk where it won't be automatically deleted after I close my browser.
* - I'm not including other people posting copyrighted content they don't own in this little rant. I'm sure the owners of such content don't care whether or not it can be saved permanently, posting it is bad enough.
The only thing I haven't been able to crack was some music I liked in a flash game. The flash game itself was compressed and appended to a flash stub exe, which I defeated by dumping the uncompressed SWF from memory while the EXE ran. The resources didn't seem to have the music though, except for some files that MIGHT have been non-standard .AU audio files, but I couldn't find any player that could play them, despite supposed support, so I never did figure it out.
I guess it says something when I can mp3 files off of music sites which you'd think would try to prevent that, but I can't get the title screen music out of Codename Gordon even though it should have no reason to obfuscate it. I suppose I could record it from Stereo Out, but that's like admitting DEFEAT.
The link on the word 'stir' seems to be broken. It looks like it might be referencing this story: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/02/1244243
Feel free to check out the blatent slashvertisement that followed in June: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/29/191253
Wow, no Cortado(wikipedia) comments? You can dodge Real, Flash, WM, and h264 and get vids using Java. Theora Sea is one of the sites.
...all you need to do is figure out which file is your cached video and give it the FLV extension. I do this already with my favorite videos, using Perian codec suite and Quicktime to convert from Flash Video (FLV). What's the big whoop?