Slashdot Mirror
RealNetworks Sues Dutch Webmaster Over Hyperlink To Freeware
An anonymous reader writes "In the ever lasting contest for the most idiotic lawsuit, RealNetworks has sued a Dutch man for posting a link to a competing freeware program that allegedly infringes on RealNetworks' intellectual property. The company also secretly obtained a court order that resulted in confiscation of all computers belonging to the man and his family. The 26-year-old has already incurred over €66,000 in legal fees and if he loses the case, he's facing €210,000 in fines. Where are the Anonymous when you need them?"
God damn it will you PLEASE learn the difference between "looses" and "loses"? You really must be a moron if you can't remember such a simple distinction.
... that RealNetworks is still in business.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Nah we'll blame Realnetworks. They have dodgy practices.
"Blame US laws, not RealNetworks." -> Since this took place in The Netherlands, I'd rather blame Dutch laws.
Yeah, except for current events relating to vigilante action against corporations that harass people and draw the ire of a large group of reasonably tech savvy people with something to prove. Other than that, totally unrelated.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
Perhaps it was a link to an entry in his own domain table, which pointed to the IP of the server (not his) that hosted the other software.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Real Alternative.
Please do not interrupt our ongoing "F* the US" circle-jerk.
FYI, no mention of patents in TFA. They are complaining about trademarks and copyrights. Does RealNetworks own the word "Real"? Only as much as Facebook should own the word "Book", if you ask me. I would understand if RealNetworks had some patents that were violated by the freeware in question, but copyrights? Does the freeware actually use RealNetworks' original dlls to decode the video perhaps? Or is this some dickheaded anti-circumvention thing? Whatever the case, I think RealNetworks are being real assholes here.
This isn't GameFAQs or Fark, you can say "fuck" here like an adult.
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
As you might have noticed, US or US companies don't seem to have any problems at forcing their laws down other nationals.
They own it within the context. "Real Alternative" that obviously is similar software etc (well, just see the name) does violate it. Facebook also owns both parts of their name within the same context. That's how Facebook shut down the adult website that mimicked their name and style.
Yeah, except the Real Alternative package is NOT actually freeware, but basically distributes the *actual* Real Player DLLs that it uses to decode with a wrapper. That's pretty clearly a copyright infringement (criminal one in fact, as it was willful and widely distributed, which generally counts as "commercial").
Real Networks IMO is a total bottom feeder company and I'd personally never install their software, but one thing I hate more than d-bag companies like Real is blatant misinformation, and this article is full of it...
Putting aside for the moment that it would be Dutch law in question here, NO. Just because Real's actions are not explicitly illegal, that doesn't get them off the ethical hook. They are dirty bastards and their attack lawyers need a public flogging.
I would answer each legal document starting with 20 or 50 pages blank with a "buffering" in the middle.... and throw some in the middle too.
I'd paste random ads over the documents which make utterly impossible to see what is written while I'm at it.
Sounds like something someone fed up with all the legal shenanigans might say if they have given up hope of any real civil law reform.
Sadly, that's not at all an unreasonable position these days.
Does it break patents and copyright in the Netherlands?
No. It can't break patents in the Netherlands, because there is no such thing as software patents in the Netherlands.
If justice is so obviously corrupted, it is no longer justice. And people will go back to doing what they were doing before there was a functioning justice system in place.
Surely this is a prime case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted? The point in RealAlternative is to be able to play back media encoded using RealNetworks' formats, without having to install RealPlayer. I haven't seen anything encoded in those formats for several years, meaning I've had no use for either RealPlayer or RealAlternative. Does *anyone* still use either?
It worked on my 386 back in the day. It was the first live audio stream I ever heard on my computer.
They went downhill from there. Their nice tidy player got rewritten and then the whole thing went spammy.
In the Netherlands, all national government websites offer their video's in RealVideo as a fallback for QuickTime, which is itself a fallback for Windows Media Player, which is a fallback for Flash.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Well, sure. I'll blame the laws (in whatever country). But I'll also blame the people who use those laws against others.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I've been blaming RealNetworks and their shitty product even back when I was using AOL (!). How that company still exists is beyond me.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
So, by your own logic, when you mention to your friend to "take care" around that drug den down the road, you should be put in jail for aiding and abetting the drug trade. We see links to goatse here all the time. The image itself is morally wrong, but the links are not. *IF* Real Alternative is in fact breaking the law then Real Alternative should be held accountable - Not some poor schmuck who simply says "look at this" via a link.
What you are advocating is akin to thought crime. If you don't conform and think the way "we" tell you too, you should be punished. The problem is just who gets to decide what is "right". In every single instance or situation. What happens when this so called "right" does not align with your own personal views? Do you bend over and let them spank you until you see the light? Sorry, but I'm sure glad I don't live in your world and can make up my own mind what links I'll visit, what software I'll install, or even what I'll have for lunch today.
But said software isn't illegal in Europe, Real Networks are suing a European over alleged patent rights, those patents aren't valid in Europe.
Fuck like a child if you wish.
So we should make google and other search engines illegal? They link to the "illegal content" all the time and they know it (just try to search for piratebay). Also if i write an article on my blog about file-sharing and include link to the pirate-bay, i shall be prosecuted according to your logic? No! Making linking to dubious content ilegal is serious threat to free speech. Czech pirate party is currently fighting for the right to link by launching the site http://tipnafilm.cz/ where they link to several thousands of copyrighted movies. See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/linking-is-not-a-crime-czech-pirate-party-declares-war-on-anti-piracy-unionlinking-is-not-a-crime-czech-pirate-party-declares-war-on-big-content.ars for more details.
I am considering removing all hyperlinks from my private website and possibly replace them with a link to a Google search that might return the page. Can't risk your life being destroyed nowadays by a stupid hyperlink.
Well, I'm not going to defend Real-Player, but a Dutch new article about the issue suggests Real initially assumed the site was actively distributing the software. They came back on that in court, so now there is just linking left. It makes them look kind of stupid, complaining about illegal software but not being able to determine where the actual download is from.
My gut feeling is Real will loose this (and they should), and in the Netherlands this means REAL will most likely have to cough up the the legal fees for this bloke.
You can even say "fuck" like a child if you wish.
Really?! fuuuuck. fucky fucky fuck fuck poop.
You had to bring German porn into it, didn't you?
But anyway, this wasn't really even about that obviously infringing software
Which is why I don't think the article was being misleading -- they just didn't focus on that aspect at all since it wasn't relevant to the story. In my view, it's the developer of the software who misled because he is the one who released it as "freeware" in the first place, not the poor bastard caught linking to it. Anyway, let's just agree to disagree...
Now, this dates back /years/ ago but at some point I was really happy with the RealPlayer that I decided to license it. It was simply awesome; I started it up and could view just about anything. From US news broadcasts to Japanese TV series right down to stuff from India and Germany. (this was "pre-Youtube" time so to speak).
Then other solutions emerged (and my interest slowly waned) but guess what? Next time I started the app. (a few years later) I was greeted with "you should upgrade!", which I didn't do. Why? I was happy with the way it was.
Add another few months and this time I wasn't able to run the program anymore period. "You need to upgrade" was all which was said, of course without any options for a real upgrade. I could pick another "free" player and that was basically it. My paid for enhancements were gone. Heck; my whole player was gone.
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT... Just set your disdain aside for a moment and look at the realplayer product page. Question: do you see anything there which hints at upgrade options for existing users ? Well, there aren't any.
Realplayer was the best learning experience for me (and all in all not /that/ expensive fortunately) to never buy anything from Real networks again.
The article title is a bit disingenuous. RealAlternative is NOT freeware. It is simply Real's codecs, repackaged without the adware crap and player software. Now on the scale of copyright infringement this is pretty insignificant, but the codecs are still Real's property and it is their prerogative to decide the terms under which the software is distributed. I'm pretty sure the terms forbid repackaging and redistribution of the codecs.
On the other hand, it's also incredulous that linking is deemed illegal. That's just bullshit. They should go after whoever distributed the repackaged codecs, not people who link to said site.
Actually, I'm not sure RealAlternative is even needed anymore. VLC/ffdshow/ffmpeg support all the RealVideo codecs, and also RealAudio with the single exception of the SIPR codec.
comment buffering...
http://filehippo.com/software/multimedia/
Real Alternative, Quicktime alternative, K-Lite Codec Pack, you name it.
They may well have thought that, but there is a duty to perform basic fact checking AND attempt an amicable resolution before taking anything to court. If they had done that, they could have saved a great deal of embarrassment and avoided creating a lot of difficulty for Edskes. They clearly decided to sue first and ask questions later. In doing that, they demonstrated a callous disregard for everyone but themselves.
They should be forced to pay a lot more than just the legal fees in compensation since the man's computers have all been seized without just cause. I don't know what Dutch law does about that.
The only thing that happens if a despaired citizen takes the law in their own hands with a shotgun is that we lose (even) more privacy and citizen rights. Governments only "treat" the effects, not the causes.
If you link to a web page that contains illegal content, you are abetting in a crime.
This is a fair suggestion, but in this case nothing has been proven to be illegal about this content. RealNetworks claim patent infringement, but has this been proven in a court of law? Until it has, how is anyone supposed to know if it's illegal or not? If I lay claim to patents on iPods, does that mean the entire internet has to sit up, take notice, and stop linking to Apple's website?
Besides that, it is unreasonable to demand that every website owner to be fully acquainted to the legal status of the software they may link to. If it appears to be genuine freeware, how are they supposed to know?
Lastly, and this really should be taken into consideration; RealNetworks were giving their software away for free, with an entirely reasonable business model financed in other ways. All they had to do was ensure their end-users liked it and found it useful. But instead they turned it into a sucky, monstrously bloated, intrusive piece of crap that people (and their computers) hated. They only have themselves to blame if users sought out an alternative.
Poo to those guys, the law sucks plain sucks ass.
So a little man has to suffer with a yearly salary loss, loss of computers (thank god new ones are cheap, $99 tablets).
I want to see a judge make a ruling for once taking *ALL* computers away from a corporate entity even though staff had nothing to do with and it might cost the company millions per day in losses.
If you destroy small peoples lives, then fuck it, who cares if you destroy multi corporations too.
1:1 is fair.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
But if we are gonna go by American laws shouldn't they be busted for spyware? Because realnetworks has a history of dodgy practices when it comes to their player.
That said I have to ask a question...is it popular over there or something? Seriously who the fuck uses Real anything anymore? I used to install Real Alternative along with QT alternative but frankly i dropped RA something like 4 years ago and nobody even noticed because Real files are like 8 tracks. Sure you might find some somewhere in the backwoods, but nobody uses the crap anymore. The only thing I see QT used for that is non Apple is movie trailers or I'd drop it as well.
The world belongs to flash now. Flash, avi, mkv, and wmv for the porn sites. Hell I don't even hardly see any mpg files anymore, and for music its all mp3 or aac. Who the fuck uses rmb or rma anymore?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Fuzzy middle ground my ass, it's freeware developed from the ground up and he didn't even make it, he merely linked to it.
I assume by "freeware developed from the ground up" you mean "an installer and a few download utilities plus a packaged install of Media Player Classic packaged alongside the codec files right out of Real's own installation package" which is what Real Alternative really is/was - immensely useful for the end-user, but a legal minefield waiting to happen by using Real's own codec files in there.
"I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole
One of Anonymous' purposes was to act as a check on douchebag companies that do stuff like this. Suing a guy for providing a link to some infringing works he had nothing to do with creating? That's pretty douchbag-ish in my book. That'd be like the RIAA suing me for saying, hey, you know what - there's this protocol called BitTorrent and with it you can download pretty much anything you want. I think some retribution would be in order in both cases.
In related news, Real Doll inc. have hired a crack legal team just in case.
I'm confused... couldn't they just build one? Surely it'd be cheaper.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
I even got to tell them why I did it ("Because you are suing someone for posting a link to a freeware player that plays RealPlayer files").
I feel better now :-)
Yes, there are codecs which should not be there. MPC - the media player in the package - was built with real's own SDK and can play realmedia files without need of any boundled codecs IF realplayer is installed on the machine. (note: I made MPC originally but have nothing to do with any codec packs)