Slashdot Mirror
Real Settles Lawsuits, Will Stop Selling RealDVD
angry tapir writes "RealNetworks has agreed to pay $4.5 million and permanently stop selling its RealDVD software as part of a legal settlement with six Hollywood movie studios. The lawsuits date back to 2008 and Slashdot has previously discussed them. RealDVD is an application that lets people make copies of their DVDs."
The fact that it is even illegal is absurd. This case is just one depressing example.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
Please Slashdot, don't make me decide whether I hate Hollywood or RealNetworks more!
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
I agree. I have stacks of DVDs that I never watch because it's tricky to open the DVD case (it's in the living room where the kids often stack their toys), find the movie I want to watch, put it in the player and keep track of where the empty case is. Plus, if the kids want to watch a movie, they can't do it themselves. (My 1st grade son is computer/electronics savvy but I'm not letting him handle a DVD by himself just yet.)
Meanwhile, I have a CinemaTube hooked up to an external hard drive. I've ripped many of my DVDs onto this hard drive and can now watch them on my TV without needing to load the discs. Technically, I've violated copyright law, but I don't consider this a violation because a) I'm just place/format shifting and b) I'm not sharing these rips out. (Nor am I downloading rips to put on there.)
What I am doing isn't costing the movie industry any "lost sales." In fact, it might increase sales as I'll be more likely to watch DVD movies I buy and not just regard them as wasted cash. So why should it be illegal just because I *might* share the DVD rip on the Internet? Why not call sharing the DVD rip illegal (since that is what they are worried about) and end it at that? (Of course, the answer to these questions is that they want to have the ability later to sell you "digital copies" that will play on "authorized devices" even if they don't offer such copies for sale now.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Now I'll have to go back to using Handbrake again, and miss out on RealDVD's actually-pretty-onerous-and-studio-friendly DRM features. I'm not sure how I'll manage using a free program that produces fully unencumbered versions after using quality commercial software from a trusted name like Real.
Seriously, though, what did they hope to accomplish by slapping Real down? Our Antiguan buddies at Slysoft are still up to their nefarious tricks, so it isn't as though smacking Real did much damage to the market for commercial DVD ripping products; and libdvdcss, VLC, et al. are still doing their thing and not at all hard to find on the OSS side.
So far as I can see, the moral of the story here is that if you try to offer a product that pleases customers while playing nice with studios(as Real did by offering ripping; but imposing restrictions on the rips) the studios will gut you and spit on your corpse; but if you just brazenly violate the restrictions, they'll be powerless to stop you. I'm pretty sure that that isn't the message that they really want to send.
Hollywood cant sue you. You are a human and are therefore unrecognised as any form of legal entity.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Rule 29 applies here:
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more, no less.
Modding "-1, Troll" is not a proper response if you disagree with me. Try reason.
Technically, I've violated copyright law
No, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that, in the U.S. anyway, you haven't violated copyright law, not even technically. Now, if you were to begin distributing those copies it's a different matter.
In fact, it might increase sales as I'll be more likely to watch DVD movies I buy and not just regard them as wasted cash.
Ha .. if these little bloodsuckers could get away selling you a disc that would play exactly once and then self-destruct Mission Impossible-style, believe me they would do it. They want you to consider your media a consumable, not a collectible.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
It's simple, the CSS key is stored in normally unreadable/unwritable areas of the disk, so a straight copy misses the key and it won't play. However, if you decrypt it and burn the decrypted version to a new disk, it will play fine.
I'm not a lawyer either, but you're right. He hasn't violated copyright law. He has violated the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause though.
except, with those 2 at odds, and the riaa/mpaa with buckets more money than you or i,who do you think would survive the court case? it would drag on for years if you could afford that.