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...
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.
1. (DVD) -> DVD Decrypter -> MeGUI, X264 -> Done.
2. (BD) -> DVDFAB -> TsMuxeR -> MeGUI, X264 -> Done.
3. (CD) -> Exact Audio Copy -> FLAC -8 -> Done.
Next question.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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!
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?
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