Slashdot Mirror
RealNetworks Sues Streambox.com
Line Noise writes "According to an article on TheStandard, RealNetworks is accusing Streambox of violating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act with its Streambox Ripper and Streambox VCR. These products allow you to download and convert a RealAudio file into a MP3 or WAV, bypassing RealNetworks protection against piracy. "
I'm a longtime user of StreamBox/2Bsys products, and a beta tester for the newest version of StreamVCR.
StreamBox VCR, formerly called X-FileGet, downloads Real content using the proprietary PNM and PNM/G2 protocols, as well as the publicly-available RTSP and Windows Media protocols. It uses no Real code. StreamBox is not the only company to do this. Windows Media Player handles RealAudio streams and files, and Oracle is apparently reverse-engineering Real protocols and formats so they can take advantage of Real's installed base for THEIR media server.
StreamBox Ripper, formerly RA2Wav, uses Real DLLs to read RealAudio files, just like a couple WinAmp plugins and (I believe) Windows Media Player. It allows you to write the output to WAV, WMA or MP3, just as if you were using TotalRecorder or Virtual Audio Cable with RealPlayer.
It's not clear what legal ground Real has to stand on. The legality of "space-shifting" and "time-shifting" licensed content has been defended in court and AFAIK, the programmer didn't disassemble any Real code.
However, it looks like Real is approaching this as a format-control issue, arguing that somehow, software that converts their format to another is illegal. It looks like a questionable lawsuit against a company that can't afford lawyers, meant to set a precedent before Real goes up against Microsoft or Oracle.
Not far enough. Ban pencils and notepads lest the evil information pirates write the secret knowledge down. But they might spread the information by word of mouth so let's rip their tongues out too. And cut off their hands just to be sure.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The DMCA tech protection provisions are a nightmare that should not have passed. Whatever defenses exists to justify the "balancing of the interests" between the creators, on one hand and those who use and develop from the creations, on the other -- the Congress made no effort to consider them in passing this handout to the IP holders of the world.
It is my hope that the Courts will use cases such as this to shut down he scope of DMCA. In the meanwhile, I (who is widely known in this community to be pro-strong-IP minded in general) find DMCA's provisions in this regard to be an abomination.
That's logically impossible unless you also incorporate cryptographically secure and sealed hardware. Otherwise, the encrypted content and the media stream can always be replayed.
Furthermore, you can, of course, always capture a copy at the device output, always in analog, and often even in digital format.
Claims like the one you make worry me because legislators may say that "well, if that is technically possible, anything that tries to circumvent it must be devious and should be made illegal".
Let's repeat this again: copyright enforcement via technology is intrinsically impossible. The most technology can contribute is means for detecting infringement when infringing works are redistributed to a public audience. And, actually, I think that's good enough, because it closely reflects the traditional dividing line between fair use (private copies) and infringing use (public distribution).
More generally, I find RealNetworks has gone bad. The biggies are:
- Real promised to open up their protocols when they started out; instead, they have become more secretive and proprietary.
- Real has secretly transmitted information from user's hard disks to their servers.
- Real is trying to prevent content authored in their format to be converted to other formats.
I don't think I need another reason to remove Real software from my systems (in fact, I already have). MP3 satisfies many streaming needs, and if we really need to do better on the low bandwidth streaming side, there are a number of open protocols and encodings available.In a suit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Seattle, RealNetworks accuses Tape Deck Inc. of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act with its "Special Audio Cable connector" and "DAC Technology", products designed to decode audio and video files intended only to be heard or viewed by users of RealNetworks' RealPlayer.
Etc... Silly stuff.
snaggin the audio while its playing and converting is relatively easy. look at: http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/05/05/925879315 .html
Same for windows with the virtual audio cable. Once snagged it can be converted to anything.
Sale of "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" toilet paper, or any other unlicensed Digital Millenium Copyright Act product, is a clear violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
2. You can sniff packets and construct a real audio/video file.
3. Doesn't this lead straight back to the problem with dvd encoding, it has to be decoded somewhere?
Morons.. I swear....
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
RealNetworks has for quite a while been offering their own software that enables you to download and store .rm files on your computer. I think that they are just sore because someone else is making it so that people don't have to spend $50? $100? on their product in order to do that. .rm has always been storeable. take a look in your Temp folder some time after you play a .rm...they're sitting right there, ready to be copied to somewhere else on your computer and kept. I just never liked RealPlayer because most .rm files are poor quality.
I hope that RealNetworks does not win their lawsuit. I would compare it to a judge favoring M$ in a lawsuit against the makers of wine or some other windoze emulator.
Tell you what: we come back and everyone's slaughtered...I owe you a coke.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Program/355 5/
Or, for click-friendliness: Wave to Disk
- The Archon
Oh, okay.
That's a UDP protocol that defaults to a low-numbered port, right? Any good instructions out there for properly opening a firewall and a NAT subnet to deal with it? Couldn't find any on Apple's site, and didn't feel like wasting so much time on a protocol so rarely used.
It's not just music, but also video, text, graphics, executable code, the whole multimedia thing. Anything digital. It won't always be feasible or practical to rip it off unless you can break the encryption.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
It's been fun knowing you, Real. It's too bad, really. It's going to suck not having a self-adjusting streaming protocol playable on non-Microsoft operating systems. Streaming MP3 over HTTP doesn't really do it for me, and I don't suspect we'll be seeing Windows Media playback for *nix, MacOS, PalmOS, the Playstation 2, etc. anytime soon.
After not working to protect their file formats, and letting Microsoft write clients to play back their encodings, this isn't going to make it.
Anyway, doesn't every playback scheme that directs a raw audio stream to a soundcard do a "file conversion" to some PCM format already? Isn't Streambox's only "sin" that they allow the converted file to be saved?
Note to Rob Glaser: maybe after you sell the burned-out husk of the company to AOL or Sun in a year or so, you can go back to work for Microsoft.
I'm going to sue these folks next. I mean, just look at them. They provide a service for converting word processing files between formats. Without regard for the copyrights held on the content of those files. What fiends!
I figure that'll be a much easier suit to win than trying to sue every person who ever listens to a realaudio file, since he is obviously involved in an international conspiracy to convert digital audio files on his computer to an analog format (his thoughts) suitable for unlimited future playback (his memory). Never a clearer case of crimethink can be imagined.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
The above post needs serious upward moderation.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-
One of the stupidest ideas, IMO, is that companies think they should be able to charge me over and over for the same content. If I go to a movie and some idiot talks or laughs during a critical part of the dialog, I'm expected to fork over another $7 to hear what I missed. On the other hand, if I buy the tape then magically I can watch it as often as I want.
Of course, this is only because the technology doesn't allow them to charge me each time I see that tape...but we are heading that way. Divx was a prime example. Streaming media is another. We are moving into new Dark Age; a period when any time we see or hear anything educational or entertaining, it will cost us. Someday when mental interfaces have been perfected, we will probably be charged just for remembering part of a concert or movie that previously experienced. [/cynical]
I say fight. This program is my new favorite tool to take back my rights as a consumer. "If I can hear it, I can record it" as the saying goes. The idea behind this program is a perfect exmaple of that. RIAA is going to have to convince me to install some new hardware in my machine if they want to be able to stop me.
And that just ain't gonna happen...
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
The passage:
Should have read:
;-)
[Here is a letter to the editor I wrote to respond to the original article.]
1 51,8448,00.html) . I do
.WAV
Dear Mr. Learmonth and Editor of the Standard:
I read your article concerning the law suit that RealNetworks has filed
against Streambox
(http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1
believe that Streambox has every right to reverse engineer the format, and I
think that RealNetworks is ethical wrong in their law-suit.
However, your article seems to imply that Streambox is somehow an "underdog"
in this scenario, and is attempting to "open up" the RealAudio formats.
However, in reality, having access to the RealAudio formats through
Streambox does not make the RealAudio format any more free, because
Streambox's software is not free software. Since all software to make such
conversions is proprietary software, there is little freedom for users. Of
course, once the audio file is converted to a free format (perhaps as
files), once can play that audio file with free software. However, the
RealAudio format will never truly be open until there is free software to
decode it.
Note, too, that if free software could decode the RealAudio format, the
public would know the internal workings of the format. This would give to
the community ownership of the format, and the format would be open. Since
Streambox is not actually opening the format for the community, they cannot
make any argument that they are helping the community of users. The legal
issues would be much more interesting and much more helpful to the community
if Streambox released were a free software product to decode RealAudio. In
this manner, we might be able to legally call into question the practice of
making proprietary formats. I would encourage you at The Standard to push
forward the idea of making proprietary formats free, perhaps by encouraging
Streambox to release their software as free software.
Finally, in your article, you refer to MP3 as an "open-source" format. This
is, in fact, not the case. Due to patents held on the MP3 format, it is in
fact *not* free, since you need an explicit license to encode into MP3
format, and it is not even 100% clear that you can decode the format
freely. I would appreciate it if you would print a retraction of calling
MP3 an "open-source" format.
If you are at all confused by what I mean by free software, you can read the
definition at: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Thank you for considering my opinion.
Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn
Due to a recent, temporary restraining order (TRO) by US District Court in Seattle, Streambox Ripper, VCR and Ferret are no longer available for download. In view of the serious impact of the TRO with respect to Streambox's business, the Court also ordered that Real Networks post a $1 million dollar bond to cover any loss to Streambox if the Court later finds that the TRO was wrongfully issued. Read press release. We regret any inconvenience this may cause you. However, you may still download an altered version of Streambox Ripper (without RealAudio decoding) that supports MP3s, CDs and Windows Media files. Thanks for your understanding, and be sure to check back often in the coming days for updates on the lawsuit, as well as other products. Happy Holidays from the entire Streambox team!
Got this off of the Streambox web site. RealNetworks is really getting to be a little baby Microsoft it seems. Can you imagine if Microsoft ever breaks up? Can you imagine 10-20 of these little companies like RealNetworks trying to crush or at least sue every competetor to death. It makes me think that maybe keeping Microsoft together as one big but slow-moving beast wouldn't be such a bad idea.
Don't let the title of the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" fool you. It's not the same as traditional copyright law... if it was, then there'd be no need for a new law, of course.
According to established copyright rules, Real has no basis whatsoever for preventing folks from decoding, translating, or recording their streams. (In particular, they have no standing, because they generally don't own the copyrights on the data itself!)
The DMCA is a whole different ballgame. Basically, it makes it illegal to intentionally circumvent copy-protection mechanisms. If data is encoded transparently, and you just translate it into a different code, that's fine. But if it's encrypted, and by that I mean deliberately encoded in such as way as to make it difficult to decode it, then it's covered by the DMCA.
So let's assume that RealMedia is an extremely hairy file format. If it's extremely hairy because Real uses lousy programmers, then Streambox is fine. If, on the other hand, it's extremely hairy because Real doesn't want anyone else to be able to decode it, then Streambox is breaking the law.
I think it's clear that it's the latter, and Streambox is in trouble. But that's just an indication of how fundamentally wrong the whole idea of the DMCA is. It's nothing more than a tool for shoring up monopolies.
Makes you wonder why the government is going after Bill Gates like he's the antichrist, but handing more power to his competitors. (Could it have something to do with Microsoft's refusal to participate in the our system of government-by-lobbyist?)
(IA, of course, NAL.)
MSK
If I'm not mistaken, the DMCA allows for the breaking of a protection code if it is for the purposes of interoperability.
Streambox may indeed win, but not without a lengthy legal battle. RealNetworks is a pretty rich company. I don't know how much Streambox has in the bank, but even if RealNetworks loses, they would still hope to cripple Streambox with legal fees.
You also need to remember that "conservative" copyright laws and rights (those against copying) seem to supersede "liberal" copyright laws and rights (those in favour of allowing copying and freedom) in the U.S.
Consider this: if the identities and locations of those responsible for the DVD crack were known, Hollywood and the DVD player manufacturers would probably stop at nothing to sue the pants off them. Sure, the DVD crackers could say, "This was done for interoperability, to allow the DVDs to be played from Linux." But here we have a "liberal" IP issue -- the exception in the digital millennium copyright act (DMCA) that allows breaking copy protection for interoperability -- going up against a "conservative" IP issue -- "contributory infringement" and DMCA's "no breaking copy protection" rule. You could argue interoperability, but the "conservative" side -- the movie industry -- would still win.
Why? Possibly because, as another poster put it, "money talks." It could also be due to the current air of economic protectionism sweeping the United States at the moment.
If RealNetworks loses, that would make the movie studios and record comapnies nervous. How can we put our content online without worrying someone will create a cracking tool and argue interoperability? Of course, in many cases, the creators of such tools are anonymous or so obscure, they are never found, and their tools circulate the Internet anyway. "Outlaw copy protection breakers, and only outlaws will have copy protection breakers." And as we all know, the studios and record companies scarcely sustain any damage from this, anyway.
But if RealNetworks wins, the record companies and movie studios will feel strong. They will think they'll do well. People will invest money in them. The U.S. economy will continue to grow! The U.S. government is currently passing laws to protect e-commerce, to ensure its widespread acceptance by the public, and to assist big business in taking over the Net. Are there any Mac users reading? Notice how Sherlock2 touts itself as "...your online shopper..." Did the original Sherlock say that? I didn't see much of the "old Net," and that which I did see, I can scarcely remember... (Sigh...)
Anyway, I'd hate to sound defeatist, but this appears to be the natural order of things these days. Isn't there another story on Slashdot right know about IP lawyers and how they think? IP lawyers must be in big demand right now.
So, to summarize: RealNetworks will probably win, because (1) since the DMCA can be used in their favour, it will; (2) they're on the side of the RIAA and movie studios; (3) they're big business-friendly; (4) they are (apparently) helping the American economy.
That was kind of an interestuing post, and surprisingly well written, too. But why do you care so very, very much about how your posts are rated? Aren't you the least bit interested in expressing your opinions on the topic at hand instead? I thought that was the whole idea of posting to a free public board such as slashdot.
This is kind of like those musicians who are way more interested in whether their music is a big hit on the charts, rather than how good it is as music. Except their attitude, lame though it is, makes more sense than yours. After all, no matter how good or bad a hit song may be as music, one thing is for sure, any hit song will generate a lot of money, which translates immediately into exotic cars, loose women, and powerful recreational drugs. All my musician friends agree that these are inherently desirable goods, worthy to be pursued vigorously. But on the other hand, /. pays exactly the same for a post with a rating of five as it does for a post with a rating of minus-one: nothing. So, once again, why do you care?
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Once again we can observe the harms of allowing the government to regulate the computer industry.
/. recently, this problem is a massive epidemic in the US Patent Office. Are all these crazy patents perhaps a result of Patent Inspectors not really understanding what's being patented? If someone tried to patent the idea of swiping a credit card, they'd just get a funny look. "One-click shopping" seems just as obvious to people familiar with the internet, but it's granted a patent by people who don't understand what they're doing.
The majority of the powerful people in the government are 50+, people who grew up in a time where there was no such thing as electronic data or electronic property. I realize that there are plenty of computer savvy people older than 50, but the average layperson in that age group doesn't understand what is a completely different world when it comes to law and regulation.
We saw this in the etoy vs. etoys debate: I'm betting that the judge who issued the court order against etoy doesn't understand the nature of the internet and of the situation: how else could such a crazy ruling be issued?
Do we need to explain these situations in terms that non-techie people can more easily understand? Something to the effect of: "This is the equivalent of making someone change their phone number because someone intending to dial Big Business Corporation X could accidentally slip and dial the wrong number!"
In the Microsoft vs. DOJ trial, it's lucky that the majority of the case pertained to business practices, and not more complicated technological issues.
I suppose in many cases, the complicated technological issues can be reduced to higher level ideas by experts. Instead of "Installing certain Microsoft software can replace DLLs that mysteriously conflict with competing software," (I just made that scenario up), an expert could tell the judge "It seems that Microsoft is intentionally and underhandedly stifling the competition." However, there's still a lot more to the situation, and over-simplifying the situation can often lead to uninformed decisions. Also, this gives the interpretations of experts the brunt of the weight in the case, and as we all know, experts can be made to say almost anything.
As we've seen on
The companies must use this to their advantage. I'm sure the developers at amazon realize how obvious the idea of "one-click shopping" is, I doubt they approached their legal department and exclaimed "This new idea is amazing--we need a patent!" The business lobbyists must also take advantage of the fact that the legislation they're trying to get pushed through Congress will get described to the Congresspeople in general terms ("This bill will protect the rights of musicians in a constantly changing time"), but whose specific implications aren't really understood.
I don't know about you, but I don't appreciate having the beautiful freedom of the internet and technology regulated by a bunch of people who obviously don't know what they're talking about.
I thought the Digital Milennium Copyright Act didn't go into effect until next year.
(The thing that I find intensely curious is that anti-spam legislation has been stalled left and right, but utter garbage like the DMCA flies through like greased lightning. sigh)
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
What's next? A ban on disseminating knowledge about the internals of the Real protocol? Oh, and while we're at it, we better make sure nobody knows how TCP/IP works, cause then they could use a packet sniffer to capture copyrighted data.
Question for lawyers: If this nonsense stands, does that mean VCRs could also be made illegal? By the same rational, tv stations could sue Magnavox for enabling copyright infringers. Maybe it's just as well VCRs were invented when they were, so they could become established before the copyright Nazis took over.
SEATTLE - Streambox, Inc. (http://www.streambox.com), a leading provider of proprietary streaming technologies for searching, acquiring, playing and managing audio and video files on and from the Internet, must temporarily halt the development, production and sale of various company products, pending a full hearing January 7, due to a temporary restraining order issued here today, the company has announced.
The restraining order was issued by the U.S. District Court in response to an action filed by RealNetworks (RNWK), which alleged that three products - Streambox Ripper, Streambox VCR and Streambox Ferret - have caused irreparable harm to RealNetworks.
"Their main complaint is that our Streambox Ripper product allows content owners to control file format, not RealNetworks. . But we believe that the larger picture of Real's whole tactic is about preventing migration of digital media files from RealMedia to other platforms, such as Microsoft's Windows Media," said Robert Hildeman, chief executive officer of Streambox. "We think that's unfair to both consumers and content providers." In view of the serious impact of the restraining order with respect to Streambox's business, the court also ordered that Real Networks post a $1 million dollar bond to cover any loss to Streambox if the Court later finds that the restraining order was wrongfully issued.
RealNetworks also alleged in the action that Streambox had violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and copyright infringement.
"I don't understand why they are alleging this when our products and technologies truly benefit the content providers and consumers," Hildeman said.
Hildeman said Streambox plans to release a version of its Streambox Ripper product that does not convert RealNetworks' media format. Streambox Ripper is a powerful utility that converts CD and other audio files to the popular MP3 format, allowing MP3 users to listen to millions of previously unavailable audio files, from music to audiobooks, talk radio, interviews and much more.
With the recent explosion of digital music on the Internet, and with the proliferation of popular portable MP3 players like RCA's Lyra, Diamond's Rio, Creative's Nomad and others, Streambox Ripper stands to play a pivotal role in providing much more audio content than ever before imagined, Hildeman said.
About Streambox:
Streambox is the world leader in the searching, indexing and categorizing of streaming media content on the Internet. The company offers full services in Internet streaming technologies that deliver end-to-end solutions for the searching, playing, acquiring, converting and transporting of streaming audio and video files.
Founded in 1999, Streambox provides Internet users with a powerful media portal, search engine and guide. The company extends its powerful technologies to a family of innovative audio and video software for PCs and other devices.
The combined technologies enable the company's customers to enjoy the fastest-growing segment of the Internet - streaming entertainment and information.
Contacts: Bob Hildeman, Streambox
425-702-9348
bob@streambox.com
Bob Silver, The Silver Company
206-624-0388
bob@thesilvercompany.com
Some enterprising individual out there needs to make "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" toilet paper. I say this, because that's about the amount of respect I have for this act. It also reflects my devotion to obey laws which only benefit a few wealthy individuals and that devotion is none.
What am I missing?
the DMCA allows for the breaking of a protection code if it is for the purposes of interoperability. Since it's clear that transcoding RealAudio files to MP3 files would enable the song to be played in new environments (e.g., on a Rio), the creation of a transcoding tool is solidly within the realm of the DMCA's exception.
This is a very good point (you should have been a lawyer!) but unfortunately it's not the whole story.
There are new technologies in the pipeline to be released very soon, which will allow content providers to control access to their media to a much greater degree than is currently possible. I'm not just talking about the RIAA's MP3 replacement, but all downloadable digital media. What they do is to wrap the content up in an encrypted packet with a programmatic key which allows you to open it only once for each time you pay.
In other words, somewhat like the PITA streaming Real Video movies, you can play it but you can't keep it and play it again later (without paying, anyway). It's pay-per-play.
There is a great deal of pressure coming from the big media industry players and the newbie internet media wannabees to allow them this level of control over their media, content, IP or whatever you want to call it. The DMCA was engineered by precisely the same forces for just this reason.
So, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, you can't expect them to sit by and watch their latest extortion racket get rolled over by your liberal interpretation of their new law. This law is not about fairness or balance or any kind of compromise, it is about letting them keep complete control of what they see as theirs.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I'd like to see how they intend to implement that.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Yes, So is whistling whilst you work since that also constitutes a public performance which violates the owner's copyright in the work. I used to sit and laugh at the legal stupidity in the US...now I cry because our politicians seem to have caught the same disease and are busily passing laws to protect the big & powerful corporations from those irrating people who happen to live here. I produce copyrighted work (yes in real life I am a reporter/journalist) and I would not like you to steal my work...but if you ask me you can have it. If you need if for education or training or helping disadvantaged kiddies it is yours for free. If you want to make money out of it sure...just give me a small percentage as I have to eat too. I think this is a healthy attitude which most geeks/hackers and true artists probably agree with. Unfortunately large corporations are not aware of the concept of charity and sharing...maybe this Christmas???
Is it perhaps a law of nature that, when otherwise rational individuals aggregate into corporations, all pretence to sanity and logic disappears and the result is the collective equivalent of a blithering idiot?
We've had so many examples of this happening in the last few days that it seems quite possible.
Or is it merely that corporations work in an environment where lawyers lay the ground rules, and the utter cluelessness of many in the legal profession and amorality of the rest tars everyone in the company with the brush of insanity?
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Streambox ripper
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
Incidentally, if this is the way things turn out, it will greatly strengthen the argument of those advocating Linux DVD solutions - it will show that the DMCA really meant what it says: it's okay to transcode for interoperability!
I think it should be clear who to cheer for.
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
David E. Weekly
Code / Think / Teach / Learn
h4x0r for
I don't like it anymore than the other guy, but at least it is over something with some substance like protecting artists' work and not a patent.
Filing the suit demonstrates the importance of digital copyrights in the digital age," said Alex Alben, RealNetworks vice president of government affairs. "We will take significant action to ensure that programming and content delivered by RealNetworks products is protected."
Protected?, Although not as easy as MP3, there really was no great "protections" scheme to begin with. If they spent half of their time working toward securing the media as they did with "Cookie Collection", this may not have happened at all.
RealPlayer has been downloaded 92 million times from RealNetwork's Web site. The software allows users to "stream" copyrighted audio and video files to their desktop. But unlike an open-source format like MP3, RealPlayer won't allow end users to make additional copies or distribute the material to others."
Yeah, Right.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Are there any projects working on getting an Free Software realplayer? I'd love to run realplayer on my Debian system.
Mabye we can get streambox to release the source...