Slashdot Mirror
In Response To Restraining Order, Real Networks Pulls RealDVD
eldavojohn writes "RealNetworks' product that allows one to copy a DVD containing a movie has been pulled. You may recall us discussing RealDVD and its legal implications." According to the linked BBC report, "RealNetworks — the firm behind the software — has responded to restraining order issued by a US court stopped selling the RealDVD software [sic]. Six major movie studios jointly sued the company on 30 September — the day the software was launched."
Isn't there other software that allows you to copy/rip DVDs ?
If there isn't, can I write one and get sued ? At least I'd get my name in the papers...
See? The big companies CAN work together when they want to. I'm honestly surprised that 6 major movie companies could work together without backstabbing each other. On a related note: When it comes to DVD ripping... just use "Handbrake" (google it. open-source ripping software)
I mean, have you ever *used* a Real(TM) product? Maybe the film studios only want to protect us...
As much as I am no fan of Real Networks and their 'products', I would have hoped at least they would have shown some balls here.
Nobody can say this about Real now! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ren3azMgViU
I can count several other program doing exactly the same job and there are some which are not freeware but can be bought. Probably only because they got too much attention?
just use an old copy if DVD decrypter floating around and Nero
to copy DVDs to other DVS's or mp4 files
Handbrake is a front end over xvid and x264 encoders so you get either an MPEG-2 ASP (DiVX) or H264 AVC file from the process. Depending on your target device you might want to choose one or the other or fiddle with the other settings but the defaults are pretty sane if you don't know what you are doing.
Sure the process might skip supplementals and there may be edge cases with alternate tracks or subtitles that require more effort but x264 is an excellent encoder and the quality is very good. I really don't see why anybody would want to use RealDVD when it DRMs the resulting movie in the process.
This is Sauron versus Palpatine. Is there a good guy? Don't think so.
Huh? You mean ignore a restraining order? That would be totally suicidal. Coming out with the product in the first place is pretty ballsy, and I think Real should be congratulated for that move.
I'm not really sure what Real Networks was thinking when they came up with the idea of this software. How could they not assume that this software would attract a lawsuit? The MPAA are a bunch of assholes anyway. I recently moved to Europe, and I was reminded of the BS when I found out that I can't lend my DVDs, which I had legally purchased in Canada, to my friends because of region encoding. Now that I'm reminded of this BS, I will no longer purchase any DVD movies.
I'll stick with DVD Decrypter and DVD2One, then.
I'd be more than happy to have a DRM-locked archive on my external hard disk, still with the content protection intact, but oh no, I have to reach behind me, search through the 200 or so properly licensed DVD's stacked in the bookcase behind me for the one I want, open the case, find that I put it back in the wrong box / brother borrowed it and it's not there, go hunting around the house for it, find it under a stack of papers on my desk, and finally get to watch the damn thing 45 minutes after I wanted to, when I more than likely no longer have time.
Sometimes, I think they just do it out of spite. They do it because they can.
I don't think i'll buy any more DVD's. It's too much hassle.
1. (DVD) -> DVD Decrypter -> MeGUI, X264 -> Done.
2. (BD) -> DVDFAB -> TsMuxeR -> MeGUI, X264 -> Done.
3. (CD) -> Exact Audio Copy -> FLAC -8 -> Done.
Next question.
Isn't this still covered under the Home Recording Act? Why is still so often overlooked or not referred back to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
Why is there a [sic] in the summary? It makes no sense to me.
I played around with the "free" rippers and re-encoders for weeks and could never resolve audio/video synchronization issues.
Finally I broke down and purchased SlySoft's Any DVD ripper and their Clone DVD mobile. Now I have my entire DVD collection as .avi files - with no FBI warnings, commercials, etc., etc..
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Going to a gun fight with a knife is pretty ballsy too, but I'm not sure "congratulations" are the first thought that would be offered to such an act.
I'm guessing it's because it's the audio home recording act and this is video.
Having owned a home audio CD recorder for many years, I can tell you that the AHRA was an interesting compromise. Home audio CD recorders do not accept standard CD-R media, but require special "audio" or "music" CD-R media that contains some encoded information that tells the recorder that it's an "audio CD-R."
The system also incorporated a technical mechanism that allowed for only first-generation bit-for-bit digital copying--you could make a bit-for-bit copy of a commercial original, but you couldn't copy the copy. (The machines, however, make a really excellent analog copy of a digital copy).
It was, I thought, really acceptable. It made casual copying convenient, you paid a quite reasonable amount for doing it, you were paying for the copy and not "pirating."
Manufacturers of audio CD-R media are required to pay a small amount of money to an agency that divvies it up between artists and music publishers.
One of the things that pushed me over the edge into a raging anti-RIAA crank was that when they started fooling around with "copy-protected" CDs, they made them uncopiable in audio home CD recorders.
In other words, here I was, an honest user, paying for every copy and keeping my end of the deal, and there they were, reneging on the deal.
I'm now utterly opposed to DRM because I'm convinced that the publishers cannot be trusted to limit themselves to enforcing rights that they actually possess. When allowed to use technical means to enforce their rights, they always overreach. They do not possess a six-year-old's sense of basic fair play.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
"Oops, someone broke into our network and stole the source code to RealDVD. Guess it's out of our hands now!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What part of DMCA exempts that? I don't see anything in there about legally gained access. Is it one of the Librarian of Congress exemptions?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Rejoyce! Think of all the money Real caused the stupid movie studios to waste on lawyers! And without ever shipping anything!! Maybe we should all get into this business...
I blame your legal system if you live somewhere you actually need to add "The foregoing is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer" to a forum post to safeguard yourself against litigation.
They can't possibly have developed the software without knowing this was the probable outcome. I hate Real, but I don't think anyone there is that dumb or naive. Either they think they can win the court battle, or more likely, they're media-whoring.
It seems like a slow and expensive way to mount an ad campaign, but maybe its cost effective, somehow.
Perhaps there is an ulterior motive? Is this some collaborative ploy to get DVD fair-use copying to be officially declared illegal?
Does this prevent Real from selling the product in other countries? If so, how?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
There's one really easy and completely legal way that RealNetworks can get around this restraining order, and tha Buffering...
I pull up the DVD in a HEX editor and open another HEX editor and look at the DVD and do all the decoding in my brain.
On the Plus side I can convert to any format, but converting to cinepak gives me a headache.....
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
and its people are increasingly becoming bitches to the big corporation's unfair and inhumane practices.
each day im becoming happier because i live in turkey. yes. i live in turkey. unbelievably, each passing day its seeming a better place than america, despite having a lot of shortcomings and issues.
Read radical news here
There is a free version available that will rip the Video_TS and Audio_TS files to your hard drive, but I ponied up $50 for the pay version and it's one of the most useful software packages I've ever owned. The pay version lets me rip ISO's of my DVDs which I can then store as backups, or I can encode the movies to a number of formats (h.264, xvid, wmv, etc.), with customizations for different video platforms (Xbox 360, AppleTV, PS3, cell phone, Nintendo DS, etc.). Whenever a movie comes out with a new encryption scheme (ie, Blades of Glory), there is a free software update that's usually available the next day to handle it. China's disregard for our asinine IP laws allows me to get the most utility out of my entertainment purchases.
And, no...I don't put any of my files on p2p networks. Why should I share the rewards of my hard work with a bunch of freeloaders?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, every time you use a licensed player to play a DVD, you (legally) circumvent or bypass the encryption (otherwise, you could not view the DVD you paid for)
It comes down to the term "circumvent", which is defined in the DMCA as:
"...to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner..."
I call your attention to the phrase "descramble a scrambled work...without the authority of the copyright owner" in the above quote.
Does viewing a DVD under Linux, for example, using a non-approved decrypter, constitute circumvention, or, have you, by virtue of your purchase of the DVD, received an implicit license from the copyright owner to view the content? Did you receive a license to view the content *only* on licensed playback devices? If so, where is that restriction listed on the media you purchased?
And I even put in "By allowing me to do this, you give explicit permission to decrypt and copy the movie for my personal consumption".
Still a free man.
I even put my address on it.
BUFFERING.
"we are here to protect you ... do you have stairs in your house? ... please go stand by the stairs"
http://uploads.ungrounded.net/33000/33440_secret_of_space.swf
Just one more good example of how copyright law is suppressing the usefulness technology. But because this is copyright rather than patent law, the "useful article" doctrine fails to apply.
I'm not a lawyer or a law student, but it would seem to me that anti-circumvention (or rather, anti-circumvention-trafficking) laws have nothing to do with copyright, other than being written into a copyright bill.
For example, if I distribute a copy of HandBrake in the United States, with libdvdcss2 (or whatever it uses) intact, I have violated this part of the DMCA, but I am not committing copyright infringement since HandBrake is under the GNU GPL. However, If I download a ripped DVD from the Internet without permission from the copyright holder, I am committing copyright infringement but not violating any circumvention laws.
Going to a gun fight with a knife is pretty ballsy too, but I'm not sure "congratulations" are the first thought that would be offered to such an act.
Inside or outside 21 feet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
There is an obvious logical disconnect in allowing people under one section of the law to do certain things that the vast majority will be unable to do because of provisions in another section of the law. The rationale is that tools enabling DRM-circumventing "use" will naturally also enable DRM-circumventing "access," which is a no-no.
From the bill's author's stand point there is no logical disconnect. You can't outlaw fair-use. That would not fly and might even face constitutional challenge. The DMCA is a rather elegant solution. Everyone still has their fair-use rights but effectively no one can make use of them.
This is a perfect example of the evil of the law. People weren't protesting it because they wanted free stuff they were protesting it because it de facto outlaws fair-use.
I find being offended by me offensive.
I think you may be parsing that incorrectly. If the technological measure "effectively controls access," then circumventing that measure is forbidden, regardless of the reason or purpose of circumvention. If the measure controls both access and use, then circumvention for any reason is a problem.
Personally, I think this whole think stinks of bullcrap.
Real, which is, admit it, an evil, worthless company that pumps out defective, DRM ladden software, suddenly decides to be "the good guy" by releasing what could be a very useful piece of software. What prompted this? The goodness of their heart? Or...
... a nice big fat check from the MPAA?
They'd love to have DVD copying not only made Extremely Illegal, but also want it to be Very Publicly Known so that no one gets any funny ideas about actually owning that content. So they encourage a very, very visible company to make a product that is used for "backing up" DVDs. They get that product's name and purposed splashed all over the place.
Then, just before it comes out, they swoop in and fucking DESTROY the company making it with a swift, unquestioning and decisive lawsuit that is right in the public's eye. A stern warning to every Dave DVDCopy out there: We will fuck you up!
Think about it. Real announces this product right before its release. That was rather quick, don't you think? Then, just in case it gets "out there" by accident, they fill it full of DRM so that it can't actually do any harm.
Then to be extra sure, they collude with the MPAA by filing a "preemptive lawsuit" over the product. How blatant! They might just as well be mugging to the audience, going "wow, that sure was a coincidence we got sued over THIS ILLEGAL PRODUCT here!"
How quickly do you think the Real lawyers will flub the case, leading to an early and precedent-setting decision about ANY and ALL "dirty illegal theft"? There'll be a hefty $X million settlement (after which, the MPAA will make a "technology investment" in Real for, shall we say, 2*$X million?
Bullshit, bullshit, bull McCallingIt Shit de la Poo!
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Sadly the law has become so unreasonable and contorted that many people pick and choose which laws they recognize or obey. Somewhere we need some sort of rule that disallows "nonsense" in the laws and their enforcement. It is not just in property rights cases either. For example the right to bear arms is explicit. The laws of the land wish to convert the issue to ownership rather than carrying or "bearing" arms. Underneath that is the normal conclusion that people have the right to shoot as the situation demands. Obviously the founders did not intend rifles and pistols to be items of jewelry that can not be used when one is confronted by an evil doer.
Simply issue the product from a nation that allows it to be sold. Then advertise it everywhere in the world and sell it over the net.
Am I the only person who thinks that the movie studios waiting until Real designed, built, and tested this software at enormous expense before suing in order to suppress this product, is incredibly low?
Clearly, they're not content with destroying the lives of grandmothers and orphans and want to make an example out of honest software engineers, making a best-effort attempt at obeying the law.
What a bunch of scumbags.
As of late, I've had to start relying on the family XP machine, using DVD Decryptor, in order to rip many of the DVDs I encounter. Vobcopy is nice and all, but it doesn't seem to handle the DVDs that are intentionally damaged w/ bad sectors to thwart ripping. Are there any other tools out there that will actually do a proper rip of modern protected DVDs under Unix?
Method of processing duck feet
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not that I'm advocating this, but why can't you outlaw fair use? The doctrine of "fair use" was a part of the US common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976 (since we're talking about the DMCA I am focusing on US law). The only thing that would prevent a mere federal statute from modifying the doctrine (or eliminating it completely) is if the doctrine were somehow rooted in the US Constitution. Courts have already held that the power to enact protections for creators for "limited" periods of time doesn't prevent the insanely long copyright periods, so I would be surprised if repealing fair use would cause any renewed scrutiny on that front. Perhaps you could raise a substantive due process or freedom of speech argument, claiming that these portions of the Constitution are in conflict with Congress' enumerated copyright powers and that "fair use" is the proper compromise. But then again, I'm not a copyright (or constitutional) attorney.
Or perhaps when you said "that would not fly" you were talking about the political fallout that might result from a statute repealing fair use (and not whether such a repeal was technically possible). A nice sentiment. However, given developments in US intellectual property law over the past 15-20 years, I question if there is any level of foolishness that can anger a critical mass of voters.
You're taking your quote out of context. In context, it's proceeded by a cite of Section 1201(b) and then "Unlike Section 1201(a), however, Congress did not . . ." So, it's clearly referring to Section 1201(b), not to the entire DMCA.
And, that is correct -- Section 1201(b) does not bar circumvention for use. But, Section *1201(a)* does that when the protective measure controls both access and use.
Anyway, Elcom was a district court decision in a criminal case. And, the part here only allowed the court to get to the defendant's main argument, which he denied. While it's the best we have, you can't really use it to stand for much.
It's important to note that while circumvention of protections seems to be illegal, those who simply copy the data and store it for playback later--without removing the protection--are not breaking the law. See the following article and note especially the discussion of DVD-CCA v. Kaleidescape:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/10/why-mpaa-should-lose-against-realdvd
You cannot circumvent protection to gain "access" to a work, but you can circumvent protection for "use" of a work provided you gained access (i.e. purchased the work) legally.
So if I rent a DVD, which should mean I'm legally entitled to gain access to it, and ripping it to hard disk qualifies as "use", I'm allowed to rip it to hard disk? I'm confused. (And not in the USA anyway, just amused and interested at this mess of a law.)
Real has had a foot in the grave for a while now.
Might as well go out swinging.
And, no...I don't put any of my files on p2p networks. Why should I share the rewards of my hard work with a bunch of freeloaders?
Because they'll share theirs with you?
I love the phrases "Congress banned..." and "Congress did not prohibit...". Congress would be quite interested to hear that. Congress is made of people, after all, and they almost never have the tiniest clue as to how their laws will be interpreted by trained nit-pickers. The idea that they did any of this intentionally is farcical. A more realistic phrase would be something like "Due to a bizarre, completely unanticipated technicality in over-analysed legalese, we are not allowed to ..."
This reminds me of literary analysis. People will get PhDs writing about what some 300-year-old poem really meant, but they never think to ask the poet (ouija boards have come a long way...). Only in this case people are actually affected by this literarary masturbation.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Am I the only one who thought that link would lead to some sort of gun that shot knives?
...
No one?
Slashdot is a pretty cool guy eh posts dupes and doesn't afraid of anything.
yes
Am I the only person who thinks that the movie studios waiting until Real designed, built, and tested this software at enormous expense before suing in order to suppress this product, is incredibly low?
What are they supposed to sue over before that happens? The rumor that Real MIGHT be doing this?
Why spend the money to be laughed out of court? Worse yet: Why risk having a judge decide that such products are OK when none was even in progress - but a hundred would be started the day after the ruling?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Umm... dear Slashdot. Given that AC posting seems to be essential to modern democracy, can we have a way to block posters anonymously, i.e. I don't care who the above poster actually *is*, I just don't want to see their crap ever again, whether they're posting AC or not?
Or how about sending your Region 1 DVD to a friend in Taiwan (which is not a member of WIPO) for him/her to decrypt and email back to you the MP4 unlocked version? Maybe that would be like having the FBI ship out suspected criminals to, say Siria, for a more effective interrogation (or to get a confession)... then returning the results back to the FBI.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
the area of law where this is not clear is whether it is legal to teach someone how to circumvent protection "on their own."
I believe that would be protected free speech, and that source code is is a form of speech.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/
Of course, that won't stop the corporate parasites from suing scholars.
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
That's awesome then. All we need to do is train monkeys in decryption techniques and we're set!
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Or we have people who seem to think that the mere passage of time is enough to change the Constitution, rendering quaint ideas like arming oneself against tyranny or crime obsolete (e.g. Rosie O'Donnell recommending that citizens only be allowed to use 18th-century muskets). Strange that concept doesn't usually find its way to their freedoms of speech, press, or assembly.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
So wait... If I buy a device from you, and it already does this for me... then the device, and not a person, is circumventing the tech. measure. So, all I have to do to be legal in this is buy a device that already does this for me from somewhere where these laws to do not apply, use said device, and poof! The machine is doing the action of circumvention, not I.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
here's your perspective.
Read radical news here
If you believe this "intent", I have a bridge to sell you.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
yes it does, welcome to the USSA
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Handbrake will detect DVD's, offer you convenient presets based on the material given, and offer you 4 different major codec choices to rip your DVD into a convenient universal format.
One could easily put in a disc, press "start", press "ok" for the automatically generated file name, and away it goes.
In a couple hours you have a 1.3 gig H.264 encode with no noticeable loss of quality.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I could swear the last story I heard on this was real pre-emptively suing to make it legal.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
...
1201(a)(1)(a) says, "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." (emphasis added)
if people are circumventing it then doesn't that mean that the technological measure is ineffectively controlling access to said work?
4c:61:7a:79
As far as I know, downloading a ripped copy is NOT copyright infringing. Only active distribution of copyrighted material is infringing.
So don't worry, go right ahead, download all you want.
Naughty, naughty, all the legislation counts not just the bits you like
So under exemptions - (ii) the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;
With regard to copyright law c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.--(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including FAIR USE , under this title.
So under the DMCA there are specific exclusions, where you can "descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure".
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The same idiots who sued the only actual secure personal ripping software will send a DMCA notice to Slashdot for this. Please offtopic -1 it.
I blame the poster for being an idiot. You're only supposed to say "I am not a lawyer" ONLY if you are one. Now everybody is saying it.
Actually, no it doesn't.
You are allowed to circumvent the protection mechanism under the provisions of fair use.
Really, it's in the damn law. No, I'm not going to point out exactly where for you.
Personally, I don't live in the US, so I don't (need to) care one iota about the DMCA.
Well, yeah. And thank you. :-)
Wow, I need to read that decision. It sounds like the court redefined "access" to mean something that no one would ever guess it means. Accessing (laymen's definition) for the purpose of use (playback?) is not accessing (court's definition), but accessing (laymen's definition) for any other purpose is accessing (court's definition). Right?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Fine, but then don't traffic in monkeys.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Your forgetting Fair Use. Frankly the current "controlling legal authority" is the standing U.S. Supreme Court Rulings regarding Fair Use. While there are lots of background work regarding this one I would point to Wikipedia's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
As regards to DVDecryptor I think many people fail to recognize that there has been NO U.S. legal claim against this company or product. In the UK the owner of the software was sued. As a settlement PRIOR TO TRIAL he SOLD the software to third parties related to the international equivalent of the MPAA.
THEN that new owner stated that the license had been changed refusing to allow re-distribution of the software. Had the origional creator used a diffrent licensing sceeme such as BSD, GPL, ectra, this "change of license" would not have mattered as the "right to distibute" would have already been irrevocably given.
Instead the new owners removed there permission to DISTRIBUTE this software. This is important because if this company ever granted its permission it would be COMPLETELY LEGAL to re-distribute the software. Keep in mind that at no point was it ever illegal to USE the software within the U.S.. For reference I would direct you to Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
"...ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
Also keep in mind that many people believe that large sections of the DMCA are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution (and common sense) and are therefor not enforceable. There are a few cases which could decide this issue. I would guess that within the next 2-8 years you will see the DMCA dramatically changed to account for this.
Johnny Mnemonic, are you back?
You didn't had an upgrade since 1995, maybe that might be the problem ... 1 terrabyte ought enough to anyone ...
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Excuses!
I don't care them sharing theirs with me, I'm buying my records, cd's and video's as legal as I can; using Handbrake and other utilities to rip to my mediaplayer.
My MP3 collection is usable through my PC (winamp pro) and my Apple (itunes).
I'm having the same question in mind, why should I even bother sharing all that hard work and money with anyone else?
Let them pay the disks themselves, they were for sure expensive enough for me to collect all that!
Don't like to pay for a certain company because they are too expensive ?
Make it cheap, wait a bit for a new movie to cool down, buy when they are cheap or find yourself an alternative indie company with cheap movies..
Still, "because they do so" is just an excuse like any else...
There are easy ways and simple ways; I prefer to take the simple but slightly difficult way!
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Comment removed based on user account deletion